Jerry_Atrick Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 I feel violated! I was listening to ABC News Radio today and this squeaky mousey voice chirs up in parliament with words similar to, "If the government show me they are cracking down in raking in the billions of tax from multinationals, I will [happily] vote for a reduction in corporate tax. But they have to show me they are doing it." I had no idea who it was, but thought, good-on-yer, shiela! Well done.. Then the journo said, ". and Pauline Hanson went on to say..." and a tape rolled which had the same sequaky mousey (and to be honest, frail sounding) voice... I was gobsmacked.. Something came out between the chops of PH and I ageed.. I think I need to see a doctor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 She will say something opposite within 24 hours, if you can stay tuned. A bloke was just expelled for adhering to one of her ideas, which she had reversed but the bloke is now with Clive Palmer.. How is it that you vote in the upper house for Pauleen's Party and they go to someone else within days??? In the senate you vote for a party, generally and the party determines the "order " of the candidates thereby controlling their chances of getting a seat, But then they can just "up" and go somewhere else if they get a bit miffed. (or a better offer). I would like to know just HOW this works. The AEC is supposed to manage all of this stuff. Are they still independent of government? The recent DELAY of the elections of " not appropriately" defined citizenship people seems to favour the Government as the "Numbers " suit them as they are NOW. Sharkie the Xenophon person will probably not have enough money to outlast other party's funding for one thing. The current voting situation is favourable to the current government.. The AEC and the Speaker of the Lower house are the ones to decide the process here. There should be NO question of their "IMPARTIALITY" in reality or appearance of. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I feel violated! I was listening to ABC News Radio today and this squeaky mousey voice chirs up in parliament with words similar to, "If the government show me they are cracking down in raking in the billions of tax from multinationals, I will [happily] vote for a reduction in corporate tax. But they have to show me they are doing it." I had no idea who it was, but thought, good-on-yer, shiela! Well done.. Then the journo said, ". and Pauline Hanson went on to say..." and a tape rolled which had the same sequaky mousey (and to be honest, frail sounding) voice... I was gobsmacked.. Something came out between the chops of PH and I ageed.. I think I need to see a doctor! Don't fret, Jerry. You're just coming down with an incurable case of political common sense. Even the most objectionable politician has something worthwhile to contribute; the first legislation of Hitler's Nazi government was a ban on cruelty to animals. Even that sharlatan Trump might do something of value, but don't hold your breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Even a stopped clock is right twice a day... Pauline is right about once a decade. I wouldn't beat yourself up about it Jerry - as Nev said, she'll argue the opposite tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 I like the stopped clock analogy. Quite a few commentators reckon SHE hasn't understood what's actually going on. and doesn't know which way to vote. SHE is the common denominator in the "Usual" destruction HER party inevitably suffers. History is repeating itself here.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 The bloke who defected to Palmers mob is equally defective. Clive has plenty of money but no morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 A defective defective? It's easier to make money if you aren't handicapped by having morals.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 You've got to wonder about the mindset of the type of person who would associate themselves with these crackpot parties in any case. I remain unsurprised that Clive and Hanson's parties imploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 You would be surprised about what sort of people vote for Pauleen. Mostly in Qld though.. The fact they get money for each vote the Party gets means they are funded quite well by the taxpayer. I don't know if this is the business plan.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Recently, Pauline Hanson said that she would save government money by cutting back on submarines. Personally, I have been saying that for years. I sure agree with her, and I take the opportunity to ask again for anybody to come up with a credible use for these submarines. ( The best answer will win a prize. You have to say what country we are at war with and what the exact mission will be )... So far, the winning suggestion is that if we go to war with Indonesia, the submarines can help rescue stranded holidaymakers from Bali. This isn't very good I know. But vague stuff like " keep our trade routes open" is worse and ineligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Recently, Pauline Hanson said that she would save government money by cutting back on submarines.Personally, I have been saying that for years. I sure agree with her, and I take the opportunity to ask again for anybody to come up with a credible use for these submarines... Let's phase out our expensive submarines, fighter planes and warships. Save a few billion. Pay a little less tax. The neighbours are friendly and always will be... Maybe not. Having a credible deterrent to pushy neighbours is a good investment, and the primary role of any national government. The prospect of a few subs lurking near their expensive warships is enough to deter potential aggressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Do we have neighbours with expensive warships? We don't have a maritime fleet, so why do we need submarines to control the sea lanes. It only take a word from the USA to stop other nations maritime fleets from coming to Australia. Do we trust the USA? Look at their record, which points up why we have submarines. The yanks told us we have to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 I don't think our submarines would be much of a deterrent. A better deterrent would be lots of Jabirus with nuclear-tipped homing missiles. Old K, you didn't specify which neighbor. Indonesia? China? I doubt that PNG or New Zealand are big threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Both our Obernon and Collins class subs have been able to get in close enough to American carriers to score "hits" during exercises. Chinese subs have also crept very close to them. It takes a very long time to build up a trained, competent military or naval force. Should we postpone that task till we really need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Why bother sneaking up in a submarine when you can buy a few 1980s Exocet missiles from the Argies for bugger all & stick them in in some unassuming old RPTs. The old RPTs might not get home but taking out a carrier or two would be pretty cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 I'm sure that most navies have long since been equipped with weapons to counter missiles like the Exocet. Russia and (I suspect China also) is developing a hypersonic missile and other weapons to take out US supercarriers. The arms race is hotting up and the only winners are the weapons builders. Unfortunately, we dare not stay out of the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Recently, Pauline Hanson said that she would save government money by cutting back on submarines. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but in her case it wouldn't be that often. Both our Obernon and Collins class subs have been able to get in close enough to American carriers to score "hits" during exercises. Chinese subs have also crept very close to them. It takes a very long time to build up a trained, competent military or naval force. Should we postpone that task till we really need it? I can't see manned subs as being part of the future. They're like spacecraft - really hard to make them do all the stuff needed to carry the fragile watery bags we call humans, where unmanned ones could be smaller, stealthier and stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 At least we haven't got carriers. The payroll is over a million a day, and they are such inviting targets. The ww3 scenario for Australia is for nukes on the North-west Cape American base, Sydney and Melbourne. How would some submarines help that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Nuclear deterrents have reduced the chance of a nuke strike. The more likely scenario is something we haven't prepared for, such as cyber attacks, sabotage of infrastructure and energy supplies. Australia has closed most of our refineries and is dependent on imported fuel. We have less than three weeks supply in storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 My understanding is that if a country has signed up to NOT have nukes, the nuclear countries "guarantee" that we will never be subject to a nuclear strike. This means that the nuclear countries would ALL carry out a nuclear strike on the bad country? Is that a correct understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 As long as you trust nations to keep their word. One President in particular has recently broken lots of promises and agreements made by his predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 ...I can't see manned subs as being part of the future. They're like spacecraft - really hard to make them do all the stuff needed to carry the fragile watery bags we call humans, where unmanned ones could be smaller, stealthier and stronger. You might be right Marty, but initially they'd probably be deployed from a mother sub, as the Japanese did in WWII. This country needs to invest in our own, unique defence tech, rather than rely on expensive off-the-shelf stuff that the bad guys have been developing countermeasures for. The trend towards using drones in defence may save human lives (at least on our team) but might ultimately increase the chance of conflict. The Obama administration was reluctant to send humans into harm's way, but showed considerable enthusiasm in employing drones to kill their enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 My understanding is that if a country has signed up to NOT have nukes, the nuclear countries "guarantee" that we will never be subject to a nuclear strike. This means that the nuclear countries would ALL carry out a nuclear strike on the bad country? Is that a correct understanding? Hmm.. would you include North Korea in that agreement? And who knows what megalomaniac may end up in charge of a country with Nukes - would they stand by that agreement? . Also, is a US base on foreign soil considered US or the host country's soil (in a similar vein as foreign embassies)? Aim the Nuke at one of the bases for justification... Or, if the country happens to be next to a nuclear power and the wind is blowing the wrong direction when the borders of that power are attacked... Nah... if there is an agreement not worth the paper it is written on ot the pollies breath wasted on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 At least we haven't got carriers. But we have a kinda mini carrier the LHD HMAS Adelaide, which I photographed here in Melbourne. [ATTACH]49561._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 We have two of them. They're impressive ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now