old man emu

I guess this was way too subtle for you blokes. The positive I celebrated was that my Mother reached the age of 100 years and is still mentally acute. I have been so lucky to have had the past three years since I came up here to reunite with her after sparse contact for forty or so years. She received greetings from everyone in government from King Charles to the local Shire mayor.

I wonder what is the total wealth of the Trump family.

Put another way, 'money is made round to go around'. For argument's sake, let's say that each person employed on these projects pays income tax at 25%. That's a lot of moeny being returned to the Treasury. Then, of the other 75% of take-home pay, quite a lot more is returned to Treasury in the form of GST payments arising from living costs. One way for the costs of these major projects to be recouped might be to encourage Austrlian companies to replicate the international construction countries so that the profits from creating the projects remains in Australia. The reason we have foreign investment in these projects is simply because ther are no Australian players in the game.

It would be great to have the Party in government having the similar things.

I went to my Mum's birthday party today. We were going to put candles on her cake, but 100 candles would have set off the fire sprinkler system.

Once again the debate has been sullied by a failure to educate the Public as to what "nett zero" actually means in practice. Attention is always given to the word "zero", with scant attention being paid to the adjective "nett". When that adjective is used in the context of this debate, it alters the meaning of the word "zero" from 'nothing' to "no increase". We have heard of the business accounting term "nett profit". A nett amount of money is the amount that remains when nothing more is to be taken away. That is, all costs have been deducted from all the income earned. We also hear of it in "nett taxable income", which is the income which is subject to tax after all legal deductions have been made. The following simple equation shows that, contrary to the idea that nett zero means no emissions, the term simply means that if the total amount of emissions either removed, or not created in the first place, is equal to the total amount of emissions generated, then there would be no excess of emissions. The level found at the beginning of a sampling period would be the same as at the end of sampling period. "Nett Zero" recognises that emissions will be created. Emissions will continue to be produced. Therefore it is logical to say that "nett zero" can never be reached. However, all efforts should be taken to have Total Emissions approach a zero value. In other words, reduction of man-made emissions, no matter how great or small, is a worthy endeavour, but reaching zero man-made emissions is a practical impossibility.

Tha Bill simply says to release the files. It does not describe the condition of the released files. Invoking the Privacy Act will allow the use of the black pen.

At least Hitler admitted that he had served a prison term.

Trump has used privacy laws to have his name reducted from the Epstein files that are going to be released. Up until his election as President for teh first time, Trump was a private citizen, according to Privacy laws. So, to protect the privacy of a private citizen, the FBI has applied the thick black pen wherever Trump's name appears in those files.

Something like that happened as a result of the 1917 "Conscription Referendum", which actually was not a referendum as defined under the Constitution, but a plebisite. Billy Hughes met opposition from within his own Party, so he left it and formed another Party.

For one Party to legitimately win an election in which other Parties are anihilated , then the winning Party must have had a platform so popular, and so sensible that to choose otherwise would be so clearly wrong. A basic knowledge of human interpersonal, nay animal, interactions tells us that such a situation could never eventuate. The idea runs counter to the very idea of individual survival instincts.

"Tuna" vs. "Tuna fish" The term "tuna fish" is used to distinguish canned tuna from the live animal, and originated when canned tuna first became popular in the early 20th century. Today, "tuna" is often used to refer to the fresh fish (as in a tuna steak or sushi) or simply the canned product, especially in casual conversation. The term "tuna fish" often specifically refers to the processed, canned product. When people refer to a fresh, seared steak at a restaurant, they usually just call it "tuna". While technically redundant (a tuna is a type of fish), appending "fish" is a common linguistic phenomenon, similar to "chai tea" or "ATM machine", which can serve for emphasis or to make a short word less likely to be misheard.

Spacey, the only time Australians were conscripted for National Service was during the Vietnam War period. At all other times and even to the present day, joining up was a voluntary decision. You must also learn that very many of those who served in Vietnam had made that voluntary decision to join the Defence Forces. I have a mate who did three 12-month tours in Vietnam. That's two more tours than the average Nasho. Admittedly he had joined the army at 16 years old and had done a full trade course before he was attached to an operational unit. We often forget the involvement of the Navy and RAAF, neither of which had conscripts.