old man emu

Sadly for Australia, there has been a suggestion that Rudd had at some time a connection with Epstein. That might be a fake. I can't produce evidence of it.

Words cannot express the outrage one should have for this "plan". It's not a plan. It's a ransom payout, with no assurance than the victim will be returned. The sooner Australia breaks ties with the present US administration, the better. It a new administration shows itself to be civilised, then negotiations to restore old ties might begin. I know some will say that we are too enmeshed in the USA, but isn't it time Australian people said, 'enough!'? If Australia continues allying itself to the USA as the USA is behaving at the present, Australia's name within the global community will be mud.

Insurance is a system whereby the high value of a risk is covered through small contributions made by very many people. It's a sort of 'manmy hands make light work'. If the insurer is the government, as is the case with Medicare, at least each person contributing a small amount knows that a chunk of that small amount is not being stripped off and handed to investors, as it is with insurance companies. Of course, not 100% of contributions to a government scheme is used to pay medical expenses. There has to be an allowance for administration costs. But that is better than a system which adds investor returns to outlays and administration costs.

Unfortunately, History is being written by the hour and fantasy has become fact.

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.

Jeezuz! I thought Drop Bears were bad enough.

Punctuating the above sentence get you, "I WOULD not put up with that", is more straight forward. In that version, the "that" has not been identified. If there was a preceeding sentence mentioning what the "that" was, the version would be OK. Remember that what we say or write must communicate our thought clearly to the recipient.

That hoary old chestnut relating to ending a sentence with a preposition has been debunked. It arose from a Victorian era grammarian's wish to have English emulate Latin. In Latin, prepositions are included in the various Case of nouns in Latin, so they do not exist as words themselves. That depends on witch skool you went to...... "Went to" is a phrasal verb. A phrasal verb typically constitutes a single semantic unit consisting of a verb followed by a particle (eg, turn down, run into, or sit up). So it makes no sense to split the phrase. Likewise "depends upon" is another phrasal verb, so you could twist the sentence to "Which school you went to is what it depends on." Rather awkward. So claiming that "up with which I will not put" is the correct form is something I'll not put up with.

Sydney in drought?????? I don't believe it.

From the list above it seems that the occupations with the best outlooks are those which involve, broiadly speaking, providing personal service to others. It is not an exhaustive list. I wonderwhich list military service would fall into. AI won't bring peace, unfortunately.

Remembrance is a two-sided coin. On one side we remember the brave act those people made to enlist to protect their principles. On the otherside we realise the futility of armed conflict. Perhaps in the 21st Century we might instil in people the futility of armed conflict. Probably a forlorn hope, but still a hope.