Trump will go after his perceived enemies

[Lacessit]

58 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not the one suggesting I don't have to lead by example just because I'm not in the public eye. Sounds like double standards.

 

Just like name calling because of a difference of opinion. 

You're not the one answering my question either. However, that was expected.

 

Either you have strayed yourself, or you have not. If you have, it makes you a hypocrite to be talking about double standards.

 

At least I can say I have never bonked a woman married to someone else, unlike Charlie.

[chickenslegs]

I am British. I support the idea of an Australian republic, provided that a clear majority of Australians want it.

 

In the last referendum Australians rejected the idea of a republic, by a clear majority - but that was 25 years ago. I think it's about time for a new referendum.    

[jayboy]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I doubt the ANZACs who lost their lives due to British incompetence in WW1 would agree with you.

 

There's a statue of Douglas Hague in Whitehall. Only the British could commemorate a person who was one of the worst butchers in military history.

 

Tell me why Australians should respect and have affection for a dysfunctional family, harboring serial adulterers and a pedophile.

 

Boorish? As someone else said, you can't handle the truth.

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

Your avoidance of answering my question speaks volumes.

 

I was once at a golf tournament where one of my playing partners was ex-security at Buckingham Palace. He revealed Prince Philip was well-known for forcing himself on maids of honor. The Queen was apparently aware of his activities.

 

When you used the term boorish, Phil the Greek sprung to mind. An over-privileged lout who thought he could do and say anything he wanted. His genes evidently carried on.

 

Tug the forelock and grovel all you want before the altar of royalty. I have more self-respect.

 

 

[jayboy]

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your avoidance of answering my question speaks volumes.

 

I was once at a golf tournament where one of my playing partners was ex-security at Buckingham Palace. He revealed Prince Philip was well-known for forcing himself on maids of honor. The Queen was apparently aware of his activities.

 

When you used the term boorish, Phil the Greek sprung to mind. An over-privileged lout who thought he could do and say anything he wanted. His genes evidently carried on.

 

Tug the forelock and grovel all you want before the altar of royalty. I have more self-respect.

 

 

 

Your comments and questions were asinine and reflect poorly on your character, intelligence and education (and gullibility given your absurd golf club anecdote).They don't represent the views of most Australians.The ambition for a Australian republic is entirely understandable and will in my view come to fruition in my lifetime, and will be arranged in friendship and good will.

 

And for heavens sake learn how to spell Haig's name correctly.

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Your comments and questions were asinine and reflect poorly on your character, intelligence and education (and gullibility given your absurd golf club anecdote).They don't represent the views of most Australians.The ambition for a Australian republic is entirely understandable and will in my view come to fruition in my lifetime, and will be arranged in friendship and good will.

 

And for heavens sake learn how to spell Haig's name correctly.

Personally attacking me is argument ad hominem. It means you have run out of  options for honest argument. I suggest you read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless, to understand your dishonesty.

While you are about it, read " Monash -the Outsider who Won the War" by Roland Perry. It details how the British establishment , including Haig, never acknowledged Monash's role in ending WW1 - because he was Jewish. You are obviously a snob cut from the same cloth.

Your comment about my intelligence and education is so far off the mark to be laughable. How many scholarships were you awarded on your way through primary, secondary and tertiary education? I had three.

Here's an anecdote from direct experience - the vice-regal Governor of Victoria, Sir Dallas Brooks. An avid golfer, he was described by a fawning local media as a top Victorian golfer. Which was total bullsh!t - he'd be lucky to achieve a single figure handicap, from what I saw as his caddie on a few occasions.

To me, gullibility is people accepting the carefully curated image of royalty, when they eat, sh!t and <deleted> just like anyone else.

Hopefully, when the current occupant of the throne carks it, Australians will grow up and shed an outmoded and superfluous institution.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

He speaks for Kiwis as well. We lost far too many in British incompetence at Gallipoli, but that went for all the allied nations there, including the British.

[Old Croc]

The 1999 referendum was rejected purely because the proposed model stated that the President would be elected by Parliament not the people. This varied little from the way the GG is still chosen to this day and was against the popular will. Many no voters believed there would be another referendum within a reasonable time to amend the model. The public were hoodwinked!

The rigging came about by the duplicity of the supposed pro-republic leader on the convention, Malcom Turnbull. He would later join the conservatives and become their PM for a time.

Despite lawfully having to remain neutral in a referendum the PM, Howard, held a party for all the monarchists (and Turnbull) at the official residence, where they quaffed $1000s of taxpayer funded top quality wines reserved for state occasions. 

 

The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia.

The question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bi-partisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998. - Wiki

[Patong2021]

On 10/15/2024 at 2:10 AM, RuamRudy said:

Likewise, you can rely upon the docile, pliant, cap doffing, servile right to maintain the undemocratic status quo. 

 

What exactly is undemocratic? Australia's Governor General is the signing entity on legal acts and is appointed by the  duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.  The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

On 10/15/2024 at 3:27 AM, Brian Hull said:

Bring on the Referendum. These is no place in the governing of Australia for its citizens to show deference to a foreign head of state. Bring on The Republic of Australia.

 

What deference is shown? Australian official behaviour has been more along the line of rudeness and pettiness.

When the President of China visits Australia, the Australian government officials and business leaders were following over themselves to show their deference. They couldn't kiss enough  Chinese posteriors.

 

On 10/15/2024 at 5:19 AM, RuamRudy said:

We are not all snivelling, boot licking sheep. Whilst still a minority, more and more brits are questioning why we have this grotesque and utterly disfunctional family as our unelected and unaccountable head of state. 

 

Who knows, but your position is that of an arrogant foreign colonial occupier of Australia. You obviously do not even know the history of Australia and the relationship the Crown has with the aboriginal people. The Crown signed treaties with the aboriginal people long before Australia was a nation and has a duty to the First Australian people. You have made the assumption that your position is paramount and has greater validity than that of the First Australian people who do not share your position.  

 

In the 1930's the  First Australian people had sought to petition King George V, to invoke his moral duty to protect them against the policies of the colonial people, to ensure that they had representation.   They were protecting themselves against occupiers like you.  In 1938, the Australian Government decided not to send the petition to King George VI (George V had died in 1936). It argued that no 'good purpose' would be served by doing so.  The Crown over the decades has acted on behalf of the First Australian people and enjoys a position of favour with them such that the First Australian people  place as much value on their relationship with the Crown, if not more, than they do with the Australian state and federal governments. 

Your position ignores the fact that you are in effect once again interfering with the rights of the First Australian people. It is the usual attitude of  knowing what is best for then under the guise of social progress. If Republicans really cared about the principals they claim, they would first seek the approval of the First nation people.

 

 

 

The Australian behaviour is  really low class and rude.  It is quite a contrast between the polite anticipation and happiness to share hospitality that Samoans are expressing at the upcoming visit. It is the Samoans who are showing how to be polite, while maintaining their sovereignty and independence.

 

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He speaks for Kiwis as well. We lost far too many in British incompetence at Gallipoli, but that went for all the allied nations there, including the British.

 

You don't speak for Kiwis - and you Gllipoli reference is irrelevant.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Personally attacking me is argument ad hominem. It means you have run out of  options for honest argument. I suggest you read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless, to understand your dishonesty.

While you are about it, read " Monash -the Outsider who Won the War" by Roland Perry. It details how the British establishment , including Haig, never acknowledged Monash's role in ending WW1 - because he was Jewish. You are obviously a snob cut from the same cloth.

Your comment about my intelligence and education is so far off the mark to be laughable. How many scholarships were you awarded on your way through primary, secondary and tertiary education? I had three.

Here's an anecdote from direct experience - the vice-regal Governor of Victoria, Sir Dallas Brooks. An avid golfer, he was described by a fawning local media as a top Victorian golfer. Which was total bullsh!t - he'd be lucky to achieve a single figure handicap, from what I saw as his caddie on a few occasions.

To me, gullibility is people accepting the carefully curated image of royalty, when they eat, sh!t and <deleted> just like anyone else.

Hopefully, when the current occupant of the throne carks it, Australians will grow up and shed an outmoded and superfluous institution.

 

 

I'm afraid this confused rant simply confirms my original impression.

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

I'm afraid this confused rant simply confirms my original impression.

I'm afraid you are not an Australian. You're just a British sycophant who was indoctrinated at an early age, and are incapable of critical thinking.

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

What exactly is undemocratic? Australia's Governor General is the signing entity on legal acts and is appointed by the  duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.  The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

 

What deference is shown? Australian official behaviour has been more along the line of rudeness and pettiness.

When the President of China visits Australia, the Australian government officials and business leaders were following over themselves to show their deference. They couldn't kiss enough  Chinese posteriors.

 

 

Who knows, but your position is that of an arrogant foreign colonial occupier of Australia. You obviously do not even know the history of Australia and the relationship the Crown has with the aboriginal people. The Crown signed treaties with the aboriginal people long before Australia was a nation and has a duty to the First Australian people. You have made the assumption that your position is paramount and has greater validity than that of the First Australian people who do not share your position.  

 

In the 1930's the  First Australian people had sought to petition King George V, to invoke his moral duty to protect them against the policies of the colonial people, to ensure that they had representation.   They were protecting themselves against occupiers like you.  In 1938, the Australian Government decided not to send the petition to King George VI (George V had died in 1936). It argued that no 'good purpose' would be served by doing so.  The Crown over the decades has acted on behalf of the First Australian people and enjoys a position of favour with them such that the First Australian people  place as much value on their relationship with the Crown, if not more, than they do with the Australian state and federal governments. 

Your position ignores the fact that you are in effect once again interfering with the rights of the First Australian people. It is the usual attitude of  knowing what is best for then under the guise of social progress. If Republicans really cared about the principals they claim, they would first seek the approval of the First nation people.

 

 

 

The Australian behaviour is  really low class and rude.  It is quite a contrast between the polite anticipation and happiness to share hospitality that Samoans are expressing at the upcoming visit. It is the Samoans who are showing how to be polite, while maintaining their sovereignty and independence.

 

I guess it's about time the Saxons started petitioning for the return of their lands stolen by the Normans. What a fatuous argument.

 

Every royal visit costs a fortune in security, accommodation and logistics. Just because the Samoans are simple, does not mean we have to be.

 

We have enough problems of housing affordability and COL without wasting money on superfluous visits by royalty, who just view us as a break from the monotony of British weather.

 

Isn't it time you grew up?

[RuamRudy]

52 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

Your description suggests Charles Windsor is someone who takes instruction and works tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden. I think that's more the stuff of his press office than reality. 

 

But regardless of his dedication to the less fortunate, the days of kings being brave, strong and fearlessly leading from the front are long gone. If he is all that's standing between equality of opportunity and repression of Australia's First People then there is something fundamentally wrong in your society, and he and his mother have failed in their duty to correct it. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

The 1999 referendum was rejected purely because the proposed model stated that the President would be elected by Parliament not the people. This varied little from the way the GG is still chosen to this day and was against the popular will. Many no voters believed there would be another referendum within a reasonable time to amend the model. The public were hoodwinked!

The rigging came about by the duplicity of the supposed pro-republic leader on the convention, Malcom Turnbull. He would later join the conservatives and become their PM for a time.

Despite lawfully having to remain neutral in a referendum the PM, Howard, held a party for all the monarchists (and Turnbull) at the official residence, where they quaffed $1000s of taxpayer funded top quality wines reserved for state occasions. 

 

The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia.

The question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bi-partisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998. - Wiki

I concur that the terms of having the President chosen by parliament had an effect but I think the reason it didn't get up is that  people simply thought if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. Only a small percentage I'd say had been particularly pro the British Royalty but I think many thought may as well stick with what we've got. Royals for most people I think were regarded as  kind of benign and the Governor General in recent times - putting aside 1975 - did what needed to be done.  I voted for the Republic for what it's worth. 

I disagree strongly that Turnbull was not honest in his desire for a Republic and he is still is the same.  Do you have evidence for that? He did come across more arrogant in his youth which probably didn't help things in the public opinion stakes but in my opinion he is sincere and  mellowed into a good politician. Well better than others such as Abbott or others but that's not hard.