dutchroll

Just spent a few boring hours in a slip port discovering amazing videos of the sovereign citizen movement. These are members of a growing cult particularly prevalent in the USA but also with small offshoots here in Australia and also in the UK (true, Phil Perry, about the 20 minute mark in the 2nd video one of your very own is trying it on with a Magistrate in Court and refusing to go into the dock, then later shows off her smashed car window because she refused to cooperate with police and identify herself after being pulled over!). They believe that Federal and State laws do not apply to them, especially road rules but pretty much everything. They also believe they don't have to pay tax, fines, and that all Courts are basically invalid. I didn't realise we had so many people this deluded living in society. 200,000 in the USA alone they say. It reminded me of the arguments which were used in the rambling submission to the High Court by our delightful Senator Rod Culleton from WA (I'll refrain from stating his political party) who has some problems of his own it seems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANNV-ecW8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV_iTR8We5U

Technically, according to conventional english grammar rules, organised religions and their deities are proper nouns (Muslim, Catholic, Allah, Jesus, God, etc) and you won't find any grammar books saying otherwise. It has been that way forever. Doesn't matter whether you like them or not. "Allah" and "God" are referring to specific individual things and so just like "Peter" or "John" or "Cornelius" or "Brisbane Broncos" they are proper nouns. Likewise a "Muslim" or a "Catholic" is a proper noun. I often de-capitalise deities just to make my own little point that I don't think they're very important, but it's semantic I admit.

I personally hate Christmas these days. It wouldn't bother me if it disappeared off the face of the Earth forever. The reason for this is not that I hate the fundamentally good idea of having an annual celebratory occasion where families get together for a jolly old chinwag, a fair bit of booze, and a bit of a feast, but for the reason that it has become so grossly commercialised that it's now quite ridiculous. However I always wish people a Merry Christmas. If it means a lot to them, then good on them and I'm not going to spoil it. Same goes for any other religious or cultural festival. If the commercialisation was dialled back a few notches - which it never will be - I would probably enjoy it again.

No it's not a waste of time if done properly. But in our company you get things like a senior manager on an OH&S rampage yelling at you at Melbourne airport because while walking through the carpark, you didn't use a marked pedestrian walk for the last 10 metres to the waiting crew transport. And where the crew transport parks.......wait for it.......there is no marked pedestrian walk for the last 10 metres.

A mate of mine put this on Facebook a couple of weeks ago. This was my comment: Realistic view: 4 months of council meetings to decide "yes this is an urgent priority". 3 months engineering assessment. 4 months OH&S assessment. 2 months for comments on the engineering and OH&S assessment. 3 months for the revised engineering and OH&S assessments. 4 months for finance department assessment, followed by rejection due to funding. Deferred to next FY - 8 months. Next FY, 4 months for funding approval. 2 months to make it to Committee for final decision. Committee rejects both engineering and OH&S assessment on ground that they were done almost 3 years ago and are out of date, so order new assessments. 2 months for resubmission of same engineering assessment which was done in the first place. 2 months for OH&S assessment with the only change being that traffic cones are now fluorescent yellow, rather than orange, 1 month for expedited final approval from Council, 6 months to tender and approve contract. 14 days for private contractor to complete work. Total time: 3 years 9 months to commencement of works. 14 days to complete works.

American radio show host and conspiracy theorist. His main - some would say his only - theme is pretty much that everything in the world is a government conspiracy. 9/11 was an inside job Chemtrails Moon landings were faked Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was a government conspiracy faked by child actors He actually has quite an audience. Over 2 million listeners a week. And as difficult as it is to believe, he's certainly not a leftie, nor are his audience. He hates the left, as they are responsible, through the government, for much of this.

So, your response starts by being condescending and accusatory, but without any really meaningful content? Then you continue with a personal accusation of incapability, touched with a tinge of sarcasm to sink the boot in. Then you continue that accusatory theme without even asking me to elaborate on my reasons. I'm more than happy to do so with specific examples and in fact generally on these forums I do give specific examples. But that depends on the point I'm making. I read your whole post above - not just the bit directed at me. It is completely bereft of any actual meaningful and well-constructed content aside from throwing stones at people generally, which if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much what you just accused me of.

Well I always say everybody has a right to an opinion, but not a right for it to be taken seriously. However I think it's generally true that people shouldn't be personally insulted for their opinion and we're all (me too) guilty of doing that sometimes when we get a bit hot under the collar. The exception I would make to that is when someone is being deliberately ignorant. I think they should forfeit any right to be treated respectfully if they're going to deliberately be an ass. Of course it can be tricky determining whether their ignorance is deliberate or unintentional, but that's where intelligent and respectful debate comes in and you get a chance to change that ignorance. I don't believe Malcolm Roberts, for example, is a "bad person". But he's ignorant. It's a complete mystery to me why he clings to it so dearly but heck it's there in abundance. I don't actually think Pauline Hanson is an inherently bad person either, but again she has shown through some of her political comments that she is quite ignorant of a number of issues. That's all a great pity because as they have grown in popularity, sensible debate continues to be distorted. Alex Jones though? Well he crosses way over the line and just needs to lie down a few times a week on a couch and talk to a really good psychologist. His opinions really are garbage, and that's not being bigoted.

So what I'm saying is that you seem to be blaming the "left" for....... well almost everything. Way too many flies around at the moment. Yeah well if the left hadn't <insert some inane reason here> it wouldn't be a problem. Racism: racism is generally rooted in nationalism all over the world. Look for the most extreme nationalism, and you'll find the virulent racists. They go hand in hand because the default position of extreme nationalists is "we are better than anyone from anywhere else, and they are much lower on the food chain than us". Bigotry: intolerance of other people's opinions is neither unique to the left or the right. The exact same people who, in some cases quite rightly, criticise the "left" for being intolerant of other opinions are themselves intolerant of other opinions! Watch conservative commentators being interviewed or chatting on their own shows, Literally every single thing anyone on the left side of politics says is dumb, stupid, "self-loathing" (despite considering myself not entirely stupid, I don't even understand what that actually means, but it's a term exclusively popularised by conservative commentators), idiotic, etc. Literally.....every.....single......thing. So that's "How To Be Tolerant Of Other People's Opinions 101" is it? Hypocrisy: Not unique to either the left or the right, but more commonly these days you get hypocrites accusing others of being hypocritical, which kinda makes my head spin.

Not a way to enhance credibility in your apparent comparisons of the evilness of the left versus the natural wholesome goodness of the right.

An article (Breitbart of all sources - why didn't you just get it from Disney?) describes an incident where a young woman is raped and murdered by a refugee. As we all know, if refugees were not allowed in our society here, there would be no rapes or murders. Right Gnu? Because if you go through all our worst rapists and murderers over history, none of them are white and born here, are they? Must be fun inside your bubble. How do they feed you?

Well....working backwards on what you've said there: The "easily rorted welfare system" is most commonly rorted by home-grown Australians. That it might be easily rorted is an internal Australian problem and nothing much to do with refugees so I don't really see why it comes into the debate. Imams who teach violence should be sanctioned and in extreme cases I would not object to their deportation. However as much as the "left" are responsible for all the ills of the world, plus cancer, earthquakes, and obesity, I don't ever recall them commonly "telling us it's our fault" that an extremist wants to kill us. The "right way" to seek refuge or asylum in Australia is, technically, to apply for it through the nearest Australian High Commission or Embassy. So what needs to be done in practical terms, is that when Islamic State thugs bash your door down in your remote little town in Northern Syria and tell you that they're going to drag you, your wife, and your four young children to the town square for summary execution because they heard you weren't praying enough, you say politely to them "excuse me Mr ISIS person, but did you not realise I have an application in with the Australian Embassy in Damascus? Could you at least give us the courtesy of waiting several months until we get notification on the status of our application before you behead us all?" Then the ISIS soldiers reply "Oh - we're terribly sorry! We were totally unaware of your application to flee to another country. Please accept our apologies. The beheading of you and your family will be postponed until you find out your status. Please do inform us in writing though, so we can ensure the message gets passed correctly to our executioners." And you see, everyone is happy then. All the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Everything is done the right way, because that's actually how it works in the real world isn't it? I mean, that's exactly how it worked in the case of Zainullah Naseri. In August 2014 as a Hazaras (Afghan minority group) asylum seeker he was refused refugee status by the Abbott Government and deported back to Afghanistan on the grounds that it was quite safe for him to return. A few weeks later he was captured by the Taliban, tortured, and almost beaten to death, only escaping by the coincidence of fighting breaking out nearby distracting the Taliban before they killed him. Afghan asylum seeker Tour Gul wasn't so lucky. He was denied refugee status and sent back in 2002. He was then shot in the head by the Taliban. Mohammed Hussain wasn't so lucky either. He was sent back from Nauru detention centre in 2008. He was subsequently caught by the Taliban, thrown alive down a well in front of his own family, then they threw a grenade down the well which decapitated him in the explosion. Bet his kids wished he'd used the official channels, eh? But enough of the heartwarming stories (there are plenty more - it's only a sample). The world just doesn't work in this idealistic way with civilians fleeing war zones and people have a choice between giving a crap, or not giving a crap. I choose the former. Though I don't profess to know an ideal solution, arbitrarily sending these types of asylum seekers back to their village in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria is certainly doesn't fall into that category either.

Well to be brutally honest M61A1, if an organisation had brutally murdered two dozen members of my family and I had nothing but the clothes I was wearing and one surviving son (just as an example), I'd be pretty much prepared to say anything in order to live somewhere else. But then, we're not in that situation now, are we?

Actually "asylum seekers" is, and always has been, the correct term. Not once in Australia's history has it ever been "illegal" to come here and seek asylum, and it still isn't. That doesn't mean they'll get it, but they're allowed to ask. A family from Syria is just as entitled to ask as a woman's rights activist fleeing Iran because she has been sentenced to death by stoning on trumped up adultery charges. Of course it sounds so much more sinister, nasty, and criminal when they're "illegal immigrants". It's a neat trick, because you can have people here convinced they're already doing something illegal when they're not. I still remember the Vietnamese boat-people influx when I was at school. These "filthy slope-heads", "slant-eyes" and "gooks" as I regularly heard them called were going to be the demise of our society, rape our women, never contribute anything, etc etc. Turns out most of them actually worked really hard, started their own businesses, and their kids ended up being high achievers at school. Shows the danger of pigeon-holing people fleeing to our shores. Speaking of facts, do not read this explanation from the Parliament of Australia if you're not interested in them as it is complete with documented references. Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts? – Parliament of Australia

I have a bottle of Ozesauce in our fridge! I do actually try to buy Australian made whenever possible, from groceries to steel cladding for sheds. Sometimes however it's just impossible. We were shocked to hear our new horse float was being constructed with Chinese steel. It's common for horse floats to be directly imported from China but we went with an Aussie company employing a bunch of other Aussies who build it here, despite having to pay much more than for a Chinese import. The boss was apologetic but said they simply don't use Australian produced steel anymore because it's more expensive (true, but it's generally better quality) and no one will pay for it. So ..... when everyone starts insisting on Australian made products even though they're a few extra dollars (courtesy of the fact our minimum wage is more than $3/hr) then maybe things will change. Until then, we get what we ask for.

Jobs will continue to be "taken away", if not by immigrants who are willing to work for bargain basement conditions, then by cheap chinese/indian/bangladeshi/korean imports made by people in factories who are willing to work for those same conditions. That will continue to happen until the ordinary citizens out there are prepared to pay what it actually costs to produce an item locally. I have witnessed on plenty of occasions white home-grown aussies typical of the "Reclaim Australia" crowd (or "Britain First" equivalent) stand and argue with a salesperson over the price of a locally manufactured item because it's several dollars more expensive than the cheap chinese knockoff in the same isle. Fine.....go right ahead buy the cheap chinese knockoff produced by the factory worker willing to work for $3 an hour. But those people shouldn't raise their hopes of gaining any sort of respect from me when moaning about the loss of our manufacturing base. I hear it time and time again from local businesses in our area who source their products from China etc: "yeah we'd love to produce everything here, but people here simply won't pay the money".

This is what he says about banks, in para 6: The Original published version, of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 as published in 1979, while outside the scope of S 71 Constitution, did in fact have the proper enacting words, but the latest version, obtained from the Table Office in the Senate has no enacting words at all in it. It is no wonder Banks, Trustees, their liquidators, receivers and agents have been able to use the Supreme Court of each State to get arbitrary orders stripping the assets of hard working Australians and giving them with the help of Armed Swat Teams, to the legal thieves, condoned by the State Governments of Australia. Which bit of that makes sense? The Armed Swat Teams? Or the bit alleging the High Court of Australia is both unconstitutional and invalid anyway? By the way, if banks are owed money and you default on the repayments, they're actually entitled to get their money from you by selling your assets. Same all over the world. Here's what he says about the Family Court, in para 19: It appears to be clear the Family Court of Australia has never required the Judges of that Court to swear Allegiance to the Queen, and as a consequence it puts a big question over its legitimacy, never been legitimate, because Allegiance to the Queen is the cornerstone of representative democracy, because the Queen, before She can assume Office, must take an Oath Herself, and that Oath incorporates the Principles of Protestant Christianity into the fabric of society. Which bit of that makes sense? Ignoring the bad grammar, is it the allegation that the entire Family Court is actually illegitimate? Is it the bit about Protestant Christianity in the fabric of society? The bit about the Queen.....a hereditary monarch......being the "cornerstone of representative democracy"?

Well what's wrong with ranking them? Someone has to get a podium spot...... None of the ones I've read - it was just the ramblings of a guy who seems to think that the Courts are all invalid. It's like Dennis Denuto in the Castle. Except he was funny. No...sorry....of the 24 paragraphs in his rambling, barely understandable letter to the High Court, the last bit of the last paragraph made sense: "I humbly request that the hearing be adjourned to another date and time agreeable to both parties."

Well.....they all use and abuse opinion polls to their heart's content, so she's no different to the rest. If that's the sole criteria for establishing "nuttiness" then the entire political spectrum is guilty. I don't know enough about other stuff she might've said to conclude she's a nut job though. Roberts and Culleton appear to be, from their own words both written and spoken, classic conspiracy theorists. Essentially half the country (or in Roberts' case half the entire world) is engaged in various levels of conspiracy which they just happen to have discovered and will bravely fight against - reminds me of Monty Python's Brave, Brave Sir Robin. This transcends your normal level of political nuttiness and enters into another realm.

I didn't say they weren't. However if you were to rank the comments and conduct of those individuals on a scale of relative looniness with barely a gnat's hair of credible evidence to support them, he and Malcolm Roberts would arguably occupy two of the top 4 or 5 spots. Pretty impressive effort for a minor party. You mean Culleton? The one who now appears to have been essentially threatening a Magistrate in Cairns over a court decision? I've read Culleton's ramblings. They bare all the hallmarks of the "Sovereign Citizen" (very similar to the "Freeman on the Land" movement) rubbish which is emerging in the more extreme sections of society both here and in the USA. This is the principle that the Federal laws, Courts, Court officials etc of your nation are all basically invalid for one reason or another and you don't answer to them. Here's what happened in the USA when one of them tried to enter a US courthouse using this argument (he's real smug about it too, up until the last few seconds)....

Well.....given that this topic is about Trump's victory and more broadly, the emergence of "Trump-like" politics in other countries, let's look at One Nation's latest effort. West Australian One Nation Senator Rod Culleton has penned a treatise to the High Court, who are about to consider his eligibility to keep his Senate seat, telling them they're a "selective, isolated, elitist court" guilty of "capricious and unreasonable conduct" and who have allowed multiple breaches of the Constitution. He goes on to accuse the various State Supreme Courts of allowing armed swat teams to strip the assets of ordinary Australians, among a bunch of other conspiracies. And yes....this is his submission to the Court in his own defence. Not "oh I'm really really sorry please forgive me I didn't really mean it" but "well you're all a bunch of .........". I wonder if anyone who voted for him is having second thoughts? One thing I know for certain - he appears to not be very capable of rational thought processes, something which isn't really desirable in your elected representative. One Nation senator Rod Culleton's bizarre letter to the 'elitist' High Court

1) We're not argumentative. We're absolutely not. 2) Strictly speaking when you said "pedantic bunch of" after "bunch of" you didn't need to use the collective noun twice in a row. 3) Point 2) isn't argumentative either.....or pedantic.

It's only a minor thread drift Phil (like a flesh wound).

Yeah harking back to my previous comment, that's dumb of Shorten. The country is not a "union", nor is the country a "business". Countries are many millions of people and thousands of different communities which have a mix of economic and social issues which neither fit into a "business model" nor a "workplace bargaining agreement". It's just so bloody stupid when politicians of either side say "I'm going to run the country like I ran my business" or "like I ran the unions" or "like I ran the Bonnie Doon Lawn Bowls Club". Countries don't work that way.

A number of examples you gave there are falsely attributed by conservatives as being unique to "lefties". Anti-GMO: I would agree there's a tendency for this to be left-wing, but it also comes from far-right wing conspiracy theorists. Anti-fracking: So Alan Jones, the most anti-fracking commentator in Australia, is a hardcore leftie? Mind blown. Officially. Anti nuclear energy: This is about the only one you got mostly right. Except if you wanted to put a nuclear power plant or waste repository in Mosman, you watch the right wing go off their rocker about it. Anti-vaccination: Actually common to both the left and the right. Anti-vaccination is predominantly conspiracy-theory driven and the hard right are equally good at it. I admit that it is very convenient at the moment to blame the left for pretty much everything bad in the world (they haven't been blamed for the New Zealand earthquake, but give it time) whilst absolving conservatives from any blame for anything whatsoever. However I admit that I'm quite weird, and tend to look at each topic individually together with the surrounding facts of where the dissenting views come from, before I try to attribute blame. Determining where and why people dissent from scientifically accepted principles, or from types of energy extraction, is actually fairly complex.