A Political Question (188)
Arkayos: Choosing a political party, is oftentimes like choosing a life partner. No-one is without faults. You have to choose based on your own beliefs.
Every party will have something you disagree with, but you learn to be politic/diplomatic about it, and keep your opinions in house. To take your opinion outside , is to devalue your political party.
Exactly right Abagail. Part of it is gritting your teeth and putting up with the parts you don't like.
Bob Katter's "Christian" policy
The ALP dominated by unions
The greens more radical elements
NLP corporate domination
Which is the best choice - none of them do I agree with 100%...
Every party will have something you disagree with, but you learn to be politic/diplomatic about it, and keep your opinions in house. To take your opinion outside , is to devalue your political party.
Exactly right Abagail. Part of it is gritting your teeth and putting up with the parts you don't like.
Bob Katter's "Christian" policy
The ALP dominated by unions
The greens more radical elements
NLP corporate domination
Which is the best choice - none of them do I agree with 100%...
Why would one do this. Why be a sheep and go with the herd.
Politics is flawed. It is impossible to cater to the masses. The individual will always be overlooked and fall through the cracks.
Hence politics can't work.
If one wants to enter the political world. Then do it as a stand alone individual. Stand up for yourself and what you believe in. Don't follow the herd.
If others believe in you the will support you and vote for you.
If you can find a major Party that supports your world views then good on you. But I know no major Party that supports my world views.
wash2u: Aunt Lizzie, like her father, was born a "Windsor"
The House of WindsorThe Windsor name now used by Queen Elizabeth II and other British royals only dates back to 1917. Before that the British royal family bore the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha in German). Why the drastic name change?
If you do a bit of research you will find one family is running the western world. Believe it or not even Obama and the Bushes are related to the queen.
Arkayos: I actually support collective bargaining, and I truely believe that it was the union movement that ended the era of the robber barons, and created the middle class. But I do wonder if the Union movement is a victim of it's own success?
And now we have unions and the middle class in decline.
And now we have unions and the middle class in decline.
Interesting theory. I have read a little about this decline of the middle class. We certainly look after our welfare recipients in Australia, but not in such a way that I believe there is a marked distinction between the way they live and how a 'worker' might exist. Therefore, I do not believe that we are to see the end of the 'middle class' just yet.
I do believe we should base our politics on improving things for the Australian people. Individuals will never wholly agree on any issue. That is what makes politics contentious, and why you will never wholly agree with what any particular party is doing. However, that is the base of politics, having parties step up and speak for the layman, to represent our views, and thus we choose a political party based on those views.
dragondog4: Why would one do this. Why be a sheep and go with the herd.
Politics is flawed. It is impossible to cater to the masses. The individual will always be overlooked and fall through the cracks.
Hence politics can't work.
If one wants to enter the political world. Then do it as a stand alone individual. Stand up for yourself and what you believe in. Don't follow the herd.
If others believe in you the will support you and vote for you.
If you can find a major Party that supports your world views then good on you. But I know no major Party that supports my world views.
Politics is flawed. It is impossible to cater to the masses. The individual will always be overlooked and fall through the cracks.
Hence politics can't work.
If one wants to enter the political world. Then do it as a stand alone individual. Stand up for yourself and what you believe in. Don't follow the herd.
If others believe in you the will support you and vote for you.
If you can find a major Party that supports your world views then good on you. But I know no major Party that supports my world views.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
The herd is made of individuals, and the herd collectively decides the direction to go...
I don't completely agree with any of the political parties, but some are closer than others, and my membership might change, albeit slightly, the direction of the herd.
Not getting involved means I have to put up, and shut up.
wash2u: Or the sins of the mother? I only know them from the media so I cannot judge either of them.
Mostly, children are the product of both parents. I was the rebel in my family, went against their established way of life. Loved the surf, rock & roll, surfie music, etc. Encouraged by my teachers that Labor(ing) was the only real way for Aust's future.
Getting married and having a family changed a lot of things for me. I had resposibilities. My children and their future became the most important thing in my life. My daughter was top of her school until she finally rebelled after my separation and only scored a 55 percentile. She is very well respected in her field of law and is head-hunted often. Oddly enough, she is very much a "homebody."
My son who struggled all the way through school ended up with an 85 percentile score and his literacy level is very low. He has ended up with a good job, owns his own home and has a lovely fiancee.
Children do learn a lot of values through their parents but there are many that do rebel "against the system."
Sorry Martia, but Bert alone is not to blame for Matt's behaviour. Any parent would hate to see that happen.
Mostly, children are the product of both parents. I was the rebel in my family, went against their established way of life. Loved the surf, rock & roll, surfie music, etc. Encouraged by my teachers that Labor(ing) was the only real way for Aust's future.
Getting married and having a family changed a lot of things for me. I had resposibilities. My children and their future became the most important thing in my life. My daughter was top of her school until she finally rebelled after my separation and only scored a 55 percentile. She is very well respected in her field of law and is head-hunted often. Oddly enough, she is very much a "homebody."
My son who struggled all the way through school ended up with an 85 percentile score and his literacy level is very low. He has ended up with a good job, owns his own home and has a lovely fiancee.
Children do learn a lot of values through their parents but there are many that do rebel "against the system."
Sorry Martia, but Bert alone is not to blame for Matt's behaviour. Any parent would hate to see that happen.
Wash you are obviously a wonderful father but please my dear you cannot judge others as you judge yourself .
The young man we are talking about has big problems mentally since he was a child... that is why he is in care at the moment and should not be left alone at any time lets just hope its not too late for him,whatever happens I would think he will have to be on medication for the rest of his life.
You as a good parent would have noticed the signs from an early age.
Would you have ignored it ? swept it under the carpet because it might affect your career...no of course not.
Tis just lucky that those those girls escaped with little damage and were able to get on with their lives ...it could have been so much worse.
It made me feel sick when the parents appeared on National Television for gods sake! blaming everything on their own child, all those years ignoring the signs.... unwilling to get help for him and then denying the problem ever existed in the first place.
If you are unlucky enough to have a child born with a mental illness the normal loving parents will do anything in their power to help them.
The signs usually appear early and if acted upon then the chances are a lot better that person will live a long productive life.
The years of sweeping it under the carpet pretending it does not exist ignoring the cries for help,using your influence to cover it up one way or another what type of parent does that.....well one with Narcissistic tendencies for a start.
I have said enough.
horizonrizon: political prostituion...meaning ...selling ourselves to the greater gain with personal interests involved ...not necesserily(wrong spelling,but close) for society as it was intended....or perhaps intended with "Forked tongue"...the masses control through deceit and white liars from politicians...enhanching only their personal gain ....If the equal wage for politicians was on par with eg street cleaners /nurses etc,etc we would have a more balanced society with true socially interested participents ...not money grabbers !!!!!
You cannot be serious
you pay for street cleaners you will get street cleaners,with all respect I have heard some outrages opinions in the past but I think this one takes the cake. 
horizonrizon: political prostituion...meaning ...selling ourselves to the greater gain with personal interests involved ...not necesserily(wrong spelling,but close) for society as it was intended....or perhaps intended with "Forked tongue"...the masses control through deceit and white liars from politicians...enhanching only their personal gain ....If the equal wage for politicians was on par with eg street cleaners /nurses etc,etc we would have a more balanced society with true socially interested participents ...not money grabbers !!!!!
I agree, is in the main a stupid and complete waist of our short human experience also why should someone receive 300% more pay than someone doing such a meaningful service i really don't know
The politics of dancing
The politics of oooh feeling good
The politics of dancing
Is this message understood?
The politics of oooh feeling good
The politics of dancing
Is this message understood?
robplum: i think your missing the point, people don't love the Queen because she is Queen of England, or head the Protestant Church, of Russian and German blood, no its because the crown offers us a chance to live under a constitution that sets out the playing field politicians must follow, it doesn't contain rights for citizens, or degrees or seek to rule over us, it offers (the constitution) an opportunity to express the will of the people, all people, muslim, christian, buddhist, jew, atheists jedi, mormans or whatever
So young Rob please tell me what you think would change if and when we become a republic? 
AgentAjax: So young Rob please tell me what you think would change if and when we become a republic?
I dunno if your studied the constitution?
An Act constituted the Commonwealth of Australia, the people agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under our Constitution, all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, and which is herein after called
“The Parliament,’’ or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.’’
The Constitution sets out for example the POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT, and the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
The power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other because pissing the queen off means you would remove the rule of law in this country completely. The Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted under an Act.
So my answer is probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other
robplum: I dunno if your studied the constitution?
An Act constituted the Commonwealth of Australia, the people agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under our Constitution, all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, and which is herein after called
“The Parliament,’’ or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.’’
The Constitution sets out for example the POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT, and the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
The power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other because pissing the queen off means you would remove the rule of law in this country completely. The Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted under an Act.
So my answer is probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other
An Act constituted the Commonwealth of Australia, the people agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under our Constitution, all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, and which is herein after called
“The Parliament,’’ or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.’’
The Constitution sets out for example the POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT, and the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
The power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other because pissing the queen off means you would remove the rule of law in this country completely. The Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted under an Act.
So my answer is probably we would all produce guns and start shooting each other
Nonsense nothing has been written or set in stone so anything is a speculation and the rest is gibberish fear installed by the royalists. Before Australia would became a republic a constitution would be written and voted upon. Which in my mind wouldn’t be all that far off of what we have now and the only minor difference would be the name change.
What i just posted other than my assessment of would probably happen,
is a copy and paste from the Constitution Act
is a copy and paste from the Constitution Act
robplum: What i just posted other than my assessment of would probably happen,
is a copy and paste from the Constitution Act
I realise that Rob, I was just referring to your comment. I hear all sorts of arguments from the royalists how it would send the nation broke because of the huge costs…etc like header would have to change and the money…etc The header doesn’t change for one we wouldn’t be pulling out of the commonwealth and the money getts printed yearly with a small change, next year that small change on your money would be 2012 is a copy and paste from the Constitution Act
AgentAjax: The House of Windsor
The Windsor name now used by Queen Elizabeth II and other British royals only dates back to 1917. Before that the British royal family bore the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha in German). Why the drastic name change?
If you do a bit of research you will find one family is running the western world. Believe it or not even Obama and the Bushes are related to the queen.
The Windsor name now used by Queen Elizabeth II and other British royals only dates back to 1917. Before that the British royal family bore the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha in German). Why the drastic name change?
If you do a bit of research you will find one family is running the western world. Believe it or not even Obama and the Bushes are related to the queen.
German George was the grandson of Queen Victoria and after she died, he was the most direct male descendant not ruling a country. Having just battled Kaiser Bill, who took over Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha in unifying Germany, the Brits went for the best descendant available and he changed his name (by an Act of Parliament) so that it would not appear that the enemy was ruling Great Britain and its colonies. But he could not change his heavy accent.
robplum: personally i think we probably have the best form of governance second to no other in the world. The Constitution sets out the extent and limits of government, not that politicians take much notice, the constitution limits the activity of politicians, what they can tax and how they are elected who can stand etc.
The people have already rejected the republicans desires to install the pope or some like agenda. The money that is going round has no value anyway, the promise to pay has long been removed
The people have already rejected the republicans desires to install the pope or some like agenda. The money that is going round has no value anyway, the promise to pay has long been removed
I would agree with you on this. I like the fact that no "local" politician can take ultimate control. There is a higher power, in our case the Queen. And as I said before, she acts like a circuit breaker.
As an example, the government is formed by consent of the queen. Had JG not been able to persuade the independants to support her last year, and the ALP and NLP been tied for power, it would have been the queen they would have had to appeal to...
The Republican movement put up a lot of arguements for getting rid of the monarchy, mainly that she did not live here nor was she Australian (although technically she is). They also did some great advetising in the USA Presidential election style of campaigning with lots of singers and actors (were they that desperate for money?) and the Australian voters soundly rejected the proposal in a Referendum.
Prior to the Referendum, it was a strong topic of discussion with many people saying that they we needed a change because the English Parliament we have needs to change. What is wrong with the current system? I asked. The only answer that I ever got was "It is English, therefore we must change." What is wrong with it? "It is English, therefore we must change." Okay, what way should we go. "Let's model it on the USA system."
Being of an inquisical mind and open to display a lack of knowledge when I want, I did a bit of research on the origins of the Australian Parliamentary system and discovered that it was already modelled on the USA system. Yes, Arky, have a good look at how each House is selected and you will find it is the same. Why did we go this was? Mainly because we had no Lords and the USA system of balances and checks seemed to work. The only difference was that we kept the Monarch as Head of State mainly because at that time, each State was still a British Colony under British Law and Rule.
And as you know, if the President does not have the support of the Parliament/Government, he is stuffed and only a figurehead no matter how much he promised the people (sounds like our leaders). It is the Parliament/Government that has the numbers that makes the decisions.
Any student of history knows that the English monarchy has only been a figurehead since the days of Cromwell, even if the Stewarts did try to regain the power that the monarchy once had.
Prior to the Referendum, it was a strong topic of discussion with many people saying that they we needed a change because the English Parliament we have needs to change. What is wrong with the current system? I asked. The only answer that I ever got was "It is English, therefore we must change." What is wrong with it? "It is English, therefore we must change." Okay, what way should we go. "Let's model it on the USA system."
Being of an inquisical mind and open to display a lack of knowledge when I want, I did a bit of research on the origins of the Australian Parliamentary system and discovered that it was already modelled on the USA system. Yes, Arky, have a good look at how each House is selected and you will find it is the same. Why did we go this was? Mainly because we had no Lords and the USA system of balances and checks seemed to work. The only difference was that we kept the Monarch as Head of State mainly because at that time, each State was still a British Colony under British Law and Rule.
And as you know, if the President does not have the support of the Parliament/Government, he is stuffed and only a figurehead no matter how much he promised the people (sounds like our leaders). It is the Parliament/Government that has the numbers that makes the decisions.
Any student of history knows that the English monarchy has only been a figurehead since the days of Cromwell, even if the Stewarts did try to regain the power that the monarchy once had.
Arkayos: I would agree with you on this. I like the fact that no "local" politician can take ultimate control. There is a higher power, in our case the Queen. And as I said before, she acts like a circuit breaker.
As an example, the government is formed by consent of the queen. Had JG not been able to persuade the independants to support her last year, and the ALP and NLP been tied for power, it would have been the queen they would have had to appeal to...
As an example, the government is formed by consent of the queen. Had JG not been able to persuade the independants to support her last year, and the ALP and NLP been tied for power, it would have been the queen they would have had to appeal to...
Australia no longer is able to defer to the Queen or the House of Lords on Australian matters. The powers of the GG have been drastically reduced by an Act of Parliament and the GG now only represents the figurehead of the monarchy and has "official duties" such was Meet and Greet, and to be the Official Witness of Parliamentary Decisions. The only time that the GG has any 'power' is when Parliament is dissolved and no one else is governing the country.
wash2u: The Republican movement put up a lot of arguements for getting rid of the monarchy, mainly that she did not live here nor was she Australian (although technically she is). They also did some great advetising in the USA Presidential election style of campaigning with lots of singers and actors (were they that desperate for money?) and the Australian voters soundly rejected the proposal in a Referendum.
Prior to the Referendum, it was a strong topic of discussion with many people saying that they we needed a change because the English Parliament we have needs to change. What is wrong with the current system? I asked. The only answer that I ever got was "It is English, therefore we must change." What is wrong with it? "It is English, therefore we must change." Okay, what way should we go. "Let's model it on the USA system."
Being of an inquisical mind and open to display a lack of knowledge when I want, I did a bit of research on the origins of the Australian Parliamentary system and discovered that it was already modelled on the USA system. Yes, Arky, have a good look at how each House is selected and you will find it is the same. Why did we go this was? Mainly because we had no Lords and the USA system of balances and checks seemed to work. The only difference was that we kept the Monarch as Head of State mainly because at that time, each State was still a British Colony under British Law and Rule.
And as you know, if the President does not have the support of the Parliament/Government, he is stuffed and only a figurehead no matter how much he promised the people (sounds like our leaders). It is the Parliament/Government that has the numbers that makes the decisions.
Any student of history knows that the English monarchy has only been a figurehead since the days of Cromwell, even if the Stewarts did try to regain the power that the monarchy once had.
Prior to the Referendum, it was a strong topic of discussion with many people saying that they we needed a change because the English Parliament we have needs to change. What is wrong with the current system? I asked. The only answer that I ever got was "It is English, therefore we must change." What is wrong with it? "It is English, therefore we must change." Okay, what way should we go. "Let's model it on the USA system."
Being of an inquisical mind and open to display a lack of knowledge when I want, I did a bit of research on the origins of the Australian Parliamentary system and discovered that it was already modelled on the USA system. Yes, Arky, have a good look at how each House is selected and you will find it is the same. Why did we go this was? Mainly because we had no Lords and the USA system of balances and checks seemed to work. The only difference was that we kept the Monarch as Head of State mainly because at that time, each State was still a British Colony under British Law and Rule.
And as you know, if the President does not have the support of the Parliament/Government, he is stuffed and only a figurehead no matter how much he promised the people (sounds like our leaders). It is the Parliament/Government that has the numbers that makes the decisions.
Any student of history knows that the English monarchy has only been a figurehead since the days of Cromwell, even if the Stewarts did try to regain the power that the monarchy once had.
Do you remember the public funded pig farms in Indonesia, the transportation of a grandfather clock, the parroting Regans new world order and our currency being floated?
Do you remember the sinking of the State Bank of NSW?
Do you remember this country being committed to yet another war without any consultation with parliament?
I think they take an oath to uphold the constitution they should do that or get out of politics
All this posturing back and forth about a republic
will somebody tell me this... we have a President what happens to the Prime Minister who happens to be in power at that time does he just change his Title errrrr no.... um......so where do we put the new President 
do we build him or her a new White House or kick the Prime Minister out or vice versa' if not where does he or she go
Also who is in charge ?????? we the people vote in the new President
The members of Parliament vote in the Prime Minister 
Yeah...... wont cost us anymore what a joke.
I want to know how this will work.
will somebody tell me this... we have a President what happens to the Prime Minister who happens to be in power at that time does he just change his Title errrrr no.... um......so where do we put the new President do we build him or her a new White House or kick the Prime Minister out or vice versa' if not where does he or she go Also who is in charge ?????? we the people vote in the new President
The members of Parliament vote in the Prime Minister Yeah...... wont cost us anymore what a joke.
I want to know how this will work.
More Threads
Blast From The Past
What's going on
Note
What I Lack In Vocabulary
A question
What Clothes Do You Feel Comfortable Wearing?
"Emotions at the Crossroads"
Name A Book In The Bible That Begins With The First Letter Of Your Name
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
Wondering
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Liberal: if you vote against the party, which you are entitled to do so, you may not get renominated by your local branch.
Labor(ing): (I am not showing a bias, Am I?) means that you are willing to put you hand up and vote the way caucus tells you no matter no what you believe (told that by a political aspirant).
Greens: We don't care what it costs to the people now, we want it NOW because sometime sooner or later, maybe it might have an impact.
Nationals: we are not city folk and what would they now about 'the country.'
So Arky, when you do you hand raising and get that bit of paper saying you are now an Aussie,
WELCOME
So what party to join? Ther are 20+ million people here and they do not all agree. So go for the bucks because the system is not biased towards the individual. Did we vote in the current changeling PM? Hell no.