cscotthendry

Brylcreem a little dab 'll do yaBrylcreem you'll look so debonair

 

Brylcreem the girls will pursue ya

 

Use Brylcreem for loverly hair

 

Why wouldn't you?

My meory of that jingle (going waaaay back now) the last line is

 

"They'll love to run their fingers through your hair"

 

Although, I can think of little worse than running your fingers through greasy hair!

 

 

The conclusion I would draw is that the previous QLD government were morons.

Worse yet, Campbell Newman was a martinet.

 

 

We've got them here too, embedded in the LNP. Cory Bernardi and Kevin Andrews spring to mind.

And our very own "W" ToeKneeAbutt

 

 

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

It seems that the recent crop of Republicans (starting during Bill Clinton's time) have borrowed some practices from a number of the world's more unsavoury "leaders". The most notable manifestation of "the party of crazy" is the rise of the Tea Party, a so-called "astroturf" organisation.

 

 

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.

The Republicans also armed rebels in south america and did a deal with a hostile country (Iran) to not release hostages until after the election, so that Reagan would look like a hero and Carter would look like a bum. Similarly, when Obama was negotiating a deal to prevent the Iranians from building nuclear (read nukular if you're a Republican) weapons, the Republicans wrote a letter to the Iranian government telling them not to deal with Obama because the Republicans would tear up the deal the first chance they got. The Republicans have gone on and on about Hilary clintons use of email accounts as though she was selling secrets to the Russians, but their dealings with the Iranians are quite simply treasonable. I don't know how any of them, especially any from the W administration are still walking around free on the streets.

 

 

I don't think I can exp;ain, any more than anone can explain how GW Bush got elected as a democratic election. Democracy means pro republican as far as I can see.

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.

 

 

bad news GNu:freaked:, Halal is staying and your money is still going to syria every time you fill your car with Halal petrol.

Wasting your time FT

 

BTW not to mention there were WMD found in Iraq, but hey let's not complicate the narrative any more.

No worries Gnu. Now just relax and settle back, Alan Jones and Rush Limbaugh will tell you what to think.

And don't forget Uncle Rupert's Daily Terrorgraph.

 

 

The Westminster system as practiced in Westminster is not burdened with ballot papers requiring 50 or more candidates to be listed in preference order.I see merit in a preferential voting system that limited the preferences to no more than three

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.

 

 

Bex:

 

Your statements regarding CEOs being better qualified to run the country than Steve the tiler stand in direct contradiction to your spruiking of Chinese "Democracy".

 

And you speak of being in denial!

 

Edit:

 

And although you seem to quote many of the points I made, you don't rebut them or address them specifically.

 

 

You flood the forum with this

Hmmm, " flood" is a bit of an exageration.

 

but what's your point exactly?

I thought I had made it fairly clear, but specifically: political donations are a form of corruption of the democratic system. Democracy is defined as "Government by the people FOR the people." Which part of that statement reads as "For the profits of the corporations"?

 

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?

Yes it does go past my mind for a fleeting moment, and then I realise that it's naive to believe that anyone, "even rich corporate bosses" gives away money to politicians for "the best interests for their country"! Whether they are street sweepers or mega-rich oil billionaires, people spend a lot of their lives acquiring their money and trying to retain as much of it as they can. Thinking that they are willing to give it away for other than self-interest (somewhere down the line) is pretty naive.

 

Does it ever go past your mind even for a fleeting moment (I did try to resist using similar provocative language as yours, but I failed) that for reasons similar to why we have a doctrine of separation of Church and State, and Separation of Judiciary and State, that we need to have a separation of Corporate and State? Corporations are designed for one purpose only, to make as much profit as possible. Considerations of national interest do not factor into Corporate function AT ALL. The role of Government is to look after the national interests and part of that role is to ensure that the citizens and organisations in the country do not act in ways that damage the nation. That's why government is empowered by the nation to create laws. When the legislation function of the country becomes obligated to profit driven organisations (or individuals), we have a problem.

 

So my point simply is

 

We need to ban ALL political donations and any funds required by politicians for campaigning should be sourced from public funds and STRICTLY limited with NO exceptions or "special cases". Political donations carry obligations and are a corruption of the democratic system.

 

 

There are three kinds of people in the world: Those who can count and those who can't.

 

 

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

The corporates are not quite so embedded here in Oz as in the US, but there have been attempts by the pollies (particularly the Conservatives) to "fix" that little oversight. Here in Qld, the LNP lifted the undisclosable donations limit from $1,000 to $12,500 in a single jump. Fortunately Anna P put it back to $1,000, but in my book, that's still $1,000 too much.

 

To paraphrase Paul Keating "Never get between a politician and a bucket of money."

 

 

"If you believe that any Western "democracy" is still in any way democratic, you're a victim of propaganda."

said Scott

 

All those representatives in parliament only got there by virtue of the votes of people in whom the said representatives had so much faith that they went to enormous trouble and expense to issue "how to vote" cards.

 

To my mind anyone who needs a "how to vote" card should be disenfranchised.

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.

 

 

It's simple. Check who funds them and benefits from their policies. Nev

There was a joking push some time back to make politicians wear the logos of their sponsors to parliament. These days it is no longer a joking matter. The politicians of all stripe and flavour are so beholden to their big donors that there is no longer any hope of seeing reforms that are in the national interests get through the governmental sausage machine. Now, lobbyists write the legislation for the pollies and all our elected "representatives" do is present them to the party and vote on them. Things that are in the national interest rarely ever get looked at. The politicians are always too busy voting on whether the mega-rich should not have to disclose how little tax they pay, or whether Rupert Murdoch should be able to grab ALL the media in Oz, or whether Jaimey Packer should be allowed to build a casino on every street corner, or whether the taxpayer should buy a new railway for an Indian mega-coal mining company.

 

If you believe that any Western "democracy" is still in any way democratic, you're a victim of propaganda.

 

 

There is a photo in RAF museum Hendon of bombing Syria in about 1932 so they have had plenty of practice.

That, and the fact that we've been invading and bombing that part of the world for decades without any improvement (and in fact the situation has got markedly worse) should be enough evidence that doing more of the same is not the answer. This is why I know that the politicians are not actually trying to solve the problems, they are only doing what people who subscribe to simplistic solutions are clamouring for, but mainly the pollies are doing the bidding of those who profit from the conflict.

 

 

We should just let the yanks and the Russians get on with it, they're bombing each other's pets anyway, so it's just one big mess.

Phil:

 

All the good, bad and ugly analysis is great fodder for the newspapers and to keep the mug punters (you and I) off the REAL game. The real game is MONEY. It is all driven by profits for the armaments and oil industries. Those industries contribute just enough funds to just keep their tame politicians in power. Those industries have the financial wherewithall to bankroll their favorite pollites to an extent that their opponent parties would die on the vine, but they won't. The phrase "Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" pretty well sums up why.

 

 

Marty:

 

We have a 2009 Toyota Rav V6. We bought it to tow the trike on a trailer when we have it. It will pass slower drivers going up hill with a trailer behind. They are fairly plain when it comes to bells and whistles that some other show ponies have like bluetooth connections between the stereo and iPods etc, but they are rock solid good quality vehicles with bucketloads of power. The Kluger has the same engine, but the extra body weight loads the engine down a bit more. For the bit of extra luxury, you lose a bit of performance.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

 

Our government are doing all that they possibly can to implement the greediest policies from the US Republicans. The Libs want to privatise EVERYTHING and make education and healthcare affordable only for the "deserving".

 

Yes Oz is a great country and our pollies are working very hard to correct that.

 

 

I agree, it looks stupid, they think the general voter is stupid at times. Look at QLD, the voters were not happy with Labor so they threw them out and voted in Newman. Newman took things too far too quickly and he was out on his ear as well. They have to realise that the general voter knows that tough decisions have to be made but they have to be made over a certain time period.The advantage of Malcolm is that he is a self made millonair worth approx 190 million. He is a very intelligent business man who will be good for the country ( where as his opponent is a union theif and alleged rapist) no problem working out who is the best man for the job as Australia's Prime Minister between those two.

Dazza: your leaps of logic leave me breathless at times. Malcolm Turnbull is a multimillionaire so in your view he's a great guy and must be very clever. Astonishing!

 

 

So it's OK for Labor to be financed by the unions, no matter how illegally those funds may be raised (theft, blackmail, standover tactics - read CFMEU,) but the Conservatives cannot? And of course, the unions don't want anything in return for their civic minded generosity, do they?

It's openly stated by the unions that they support and fund the Labor party. Why is that different from businesses funding the conservatives? You talk of funds illegally raised, but as a shareholder of any business, when was the last time that business asked you if it could donate part of the profits to a political party? When workers pay their union fees, they know what they will (mostly) be used for. If you invest in a business, you have zero say about which politicians that business donates to, and the benefits derived from those donations never end up in YOUR ockets.

 

 

So the question is, are politicians merely becoming more myopic, or are we the general population only interested in the absolute now! I think its the former, perhaps because there is a chance it can be changed, if the latter then what hope have we?

The answer is the "middle ground". When Hawke and Keating took Labor rightward to the middle politically, they captured a lot of swinging voter that might have voted conservative. The same thing happened with Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. The problem with that is that to distinguish themselves from the "Labour" parties, the Conservatives had to move further to the Right. This pleased the corporates and the already wealthy so they encouraged, financed and promoted the Conservative. Like drug addicts, the Conservative pollies became addicted to the donations and dependant on them and their media owners to get into power. As they have continued to move further rightward, they have been castigated by extremists for not being far enough out to the Right. For business and the rich, there is no definition of "Enough" and so businesses and the wealthy constantly pushed their Conservative politicians for "more" which the pollies promised in order to secure the support.

 

If the modern conservative parties had to push their current agenda without the massive support of the Murdoch media machine and the overwhelming volume of business donations, they would be unelectable.

 

 

Most people hated Gillard pretty much solely for the carbon tax and because she formed an alliance with the Greens. The rest was personal.

Many conservative voting pilots I know, when specifically asked what they disliked about Gillard, stated those two things (but were pretty short on elaborating in any detail), then went on to explain how big her **se was, how unattractive she was, and how her hairdresser boyfriend must be a p**f. No, I am not joking or exaggerating. That was their contribution to the policy debate. The latter three points took up most of the conversation time when Gillard's name was mentioned.

 

I actually agreed that the carbon tax was a bad policy idea, but I never got to explain why in most conversations as the topic so quickly turned to her "fat **se". I do actually get a bit despondent over the apparent intellect of some of my colleagues sometimes, but I know I'm not alone there.

Dutch:

 

Most Conservatives I've spoken to are like that. Their loyalty to their party is like their loyalty to their footy team. It is tribal and personal. "You are with us or against us" there are no shades of grey for Conservatives. If you are one of "Them" and not one of "Us" then you are to be hated and destroyed. My own sister is like this and once wrote to me that "Mom should have aborted you".

 

 

Dazza: A country only looks bad when they mindlessly stick with a bad leader like W or Abbott, out of some form of tribal loyalty. A dud is a dud regardless of which party they come from and Abbott was without doubt our worst dud ever. It is completely beyond me what the voters in his electorate see in him.

 

 

Gillard was worse than Abbott. Actually they were as bad as each other.

Not even close! Gillard had to contend with a minority government, but still managed to get a lot of nation building legislation passed. All Abbott managed to do was pick fights with everyone, including his own cabinet. As dysfunctional as the RGR government was, they didn't indulge in stupid Captain's picks like the Abbott disaster.