Republican win

[nomadpete]

Lighten up M61.

 

To each their own.

 

Life is not wasted when it is spent doing stuff that the individual finds rewarding. It's not for me to harshly judge the value of other's belief structure, so long as nobody forces others to behave against their beliefs (or starts wars, etc over it). I do, however deeply hope that the pollies and 'educators' start to keep religions out of their work, so that people can make their own minds up without the disadvantage of starting out with indoctrinated narrow views.

 

 

[M61A1]

Lighten up M61.To each their own.

 

Life is not wasted when it is spent doing stuff that the individual finds rewarding. It's not for me to harshly judge the value of other's belief structure, so long as nobody forces others to behave against their beliefs (or starts wars, etc over it). I do, however deeply hope that the pollies and 'educators' start to keep religions out of their work, so that people can make their own minds up without the disadvantage of starting out with indoctrinated narrow views.

If you read what I wrote, It's that realisation that you've waste part of your precious, short life trying to appease a non-existent god. Nothing to do with those that euphoric state of those who believe the most powerful being in the universe is listening to them.

 

I will lighten up when religion is for adults only, not while they let people fill kiddies heads with it...it's called "grooming"

 

 

[Bikky]

it's called "grooming"

God is love and you better believe in him or you will spend eternity in hell!

 

Grooming? I think it's worse than that. The term child abuse comes to mind.

 

 

[Yenn]

God. The worlds greatest con man, or at least the ancients that created it. Now it is the biggest insuranc scam.

 

I can't see where God has anything to do with love except we are all expected to love it.

 

 

[nomadpete]

God..........I can't see where God has anything to do with love except we are all expected to love it.

"It?" Or "them?"

 

So many to choose from and they each seem to exclude all others. Not so much an insurance scam, as a betting scam.

 

 

[M61A1]

"It?" Or "them?"

So many to choose from and they each seem to exclude all others. Not so much an insurance scam, as a betting scam.

Yes....the irony of being against gambling, but willing to bet their whole life on there being an afterlife.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If you read what I wrote, It's that realisation that you've waste part of your precious, short life trying to appease a non-existent god. Nothing to do with those that euphoric state of those who believe the most powerful being in the universe is listening to them.I will lighten up when religion is for adults only, not while they let people fill kiddies heads with it...it's called "grooming"

 

God is love and you better believe in him or you will spend eternity in hell!Grooming? I think it's worse than that. The term child abuse comes to mind.

The devisions between those who believe in a God and those who don't will always be broad and cause similar unending arguments as those caused when a far left person argues with a far right over politics. As much as we are loath to admit it we are all bigoted in our way of thinking and the more we try to convince those of opposing views the less likely they are to listen.

 

I strongly disagree with anyone trying to push their beliefs or non beliefs on others.

 

Using children to target those of opposing views is unnecessary IMO. I think we all want the best for our children and no doubt we all do our best to equip them for the big wide world in the best way we can. We all teach our children right from wrong (as we see it!) from a very early age, this will obviously differ with culture, ideologies, moral beliefs and with many other factors including the God vs no god sides and I think that is a very basic human right as long as it abides within our countries laws and lines up with agreeable ethics (basically treat others nicely and not harm those that think differently to us)

 

 

[Phil Perry]

* * * *WARNING * * * * * RELIGION DETECTED ! ! ! ! !

 

( Sorry folks,. . .my red flashing beacon GIF is too large for upload )

 

 

[Phil Perry]

[ATTACH]48039._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[nomadpete]

Back to the original "off topic" topic

 

Now we can explore all the polarised opinions on politics!

 

Thanks Phil

 

 

[dutchroll]

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

 

 

[Phil Perry]

From Cuz Carole's Democrat Facebook page again buddies. . . .

 

( This pic is intended to denigrate trump BTW, but is nontheless amusing. . . )

 

[ATTACH]48040._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[willedoo]

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

I think Pauline's hoping he will just go away.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

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.

Although you qualified this as a point of "One Nation", I find your comment applicable to various individuals from Parties across the board.

 

 

[willedoo]

Although you qualified this as a point of "One Nation", I find your comment applicable to various individuals from Parties across the board.

Good point, bex; it probably describes two thirds of Australia's State and Federal politicians.

 

 

[Marty_d]

[ATTACH=full]46894[/ATTACH]

They obviously didn't notice the size of the last Senate voting form... it'd be at least half a roll.

 

 

[Yenn]

Cullens claims should be looked into. there is a grain of substance to them.

 

Thye rest of the pollies are no better, they come up with anything they can think of to get their views promoted.

 

For example when the power supply in SA collapsed, they blamed it on renewable energy. I cannot see how that caused power pylons to fall over.

 

Not only the pollies are at fault, our Qld Governor who later became governor general signed the law allowing the government to amalgamate the shires. That was after the Premier had vowed that there would be consultation prior to the election and after it she did away with the requirement for a referendum and rode roughshod over the voters.

 

Those in charge are always proving that they cannot be trusted, except to make stupid decisions.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Although you qualified this as a point of "One Nation", I find your comment applicable to various individuals from Parties across the board.

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.

 

Cullens claims should be looked into. there is a grain of substance to them.

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)....

 

 

[M61A1]

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.

 

]

And another nut job...

 

Labor MP caught out on polls

 

 

[dutchroll]

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.

 

 

[M61A1]

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.

Agreed...conspiracy theorists are in another realm.

 

I'm not quite sure whether they are any better or worse than the chronically stupid, but I would guess (in regard to the video) that this is what happens when you try to meet quotas rather than reward merit.

 

No...hypocrisy is not the sole criteria, but it's a good place to start.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I didn't say they weren't. However ...

... but you'll go on to counter my point anyway once again identifying him as the standout loony.

 

To be honest i find them quite harmless and ignorable, it's a few of the Greens who are the dangerous loonies because of the radical following they have - and somewhat dangerous.

 

But I digress, I will stay with the opinion that you find them across the board.

 

I've read Culleton's ramblings.

Which points do you find valid?

 

 

[dutchroll]

... but you'll go on to counter my point anyway once again identifying him as the standout loony.

Well what's wrong with ranking them? Someone has to get a podium spot......

 

Which points do you find valid?

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."

 

 

[bexrbetter]

None of the ones I've read -

Well there are some valid points there, but you have to want to read them without bias.

 

If you believe the banks don't operate within laws to themselves using Government resources to do so, or if the Family Court hasn't made some ludicrous decisions that have led to suicides then you live on another planet.

 

Just because someone from One Nation says it, doesn't make it not true, nor if it's included within other radical comment - or from whom.

 

It's the message, not the messenger.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Well there are some valid points there, but you have to want to read them without bias.

If you believe the banks don't operate within laws to themselves using Government resources to do so, or if the Family Court hasn't made some ludicrous decisions that have led to suicides then you live on another planet.

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"?