To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us
that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from
1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief.
It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives
and govern ourselves.

It's time to become a republic.
Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General?
How would we decide?
Would we vote as the Americans do for their president?

We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution.
The problem would be to elect someone honest enough
to be our governor general.
I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us -
and then both of them having the power to sack each other.

We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that
Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios
in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew -
let alone the public.
That must have been because the Governor General
was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree?
That is something you'd expect to find in a
banana republic or a 3rd world country.
It's totally unacceptable.

erm.. QE II didn't elect the GG. He's Horstralian.

We need a "peoples" President, not a "politicians" President. A President who is allowed to boot politicians up the rear if they get upperty and/or legislate policies that are damaging to the people

Dead right.  26,143,831 presidents.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 12:32pm:

That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree?

Nope. There is nothing wrong with having multiple portfolios. Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard did it.

The error was not telling people about it.

The error was then also the GG not telling...

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? Nope. There is nothing wrong with having multiple portfolios. Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard did it. The error was not telling people about it.

It was all done in secret maybe even at night.
Apparently it wasn't illegal -
go figure?

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:35pm:

The error was then also the GG not telling...

What else goes on behind our backs?
Under freedom of information can we find out?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 12:32pm:

To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable.

All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:37pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:35pm: The error was then also the GG not telling... What else goes on behind our backs? Under freedom of information can we find out?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/e5/1a/69e51a66fb6e02804d266e62bf58ad4f.gif

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:37pm:

All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods.

How did the monarchy stop that outrageous abuse of power? -
ScoMo and the GG doing secret deals in the middle of the night.
The monarchy didn't help us at all - it made it possible.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:37pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:35pm: The error was then also the GG not telling... What else goes on behind our backs? Under freedom of information can we find out?

Yes Trumpy knows all the Top Secrets, Kim's love letters and spies in Moscow.  Read it on twitter.

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: chimera wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:35pm: The error was then also the GG not telling... What else goes on behind our backs? Under freedom of information can we find out? Yes Trumpy knows all the Top Secrets, Kim's love letters and spies in Moscow.  Read it on twitter.

Write a letter to the GG and ask him to give full details
of any other secret deals made in the last 50 years.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods.

The Australian Choice Model

The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us.

The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock.

( Shhh. Ther's a secret rubber stamp official in Beijing, taking orders from the Lizards, Jews and Rothschilds)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock.

It would save a lot of money compared to a national election
if the job of Governor General was advertised like any another job -
that candidate to publish a manifesto and answer questions -
and the upper and lower houses of parliament were brought together and
each member given 1 vote to decide who wins the job.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State

The infallibility of Politicians. ;D ;D ;D

From the other thread:


freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 2:45pm:

That is the model quoted in the OP. They appear to think that if they make the model complicated and circuitous enough, people will think it is a good idea. The powers they want to give the HOS appear to be similar to the GG, yet despite it's complexity it fails the most fundamental requirement - a HOS that is somewhat detached from the regular political machinations. Our current model achieves this. The proposed model is a complicated version of getting the voting public to choose between a small number of Labor and Liberal stooges. With a lot of wishful thinking and arm waving, the republicans would have us believe that the elected stooge would act impartially. It is basically the same model, but without the key advantage that the monarch provides. It's like they got a bunch of school students to invent something in an afternoon session. It lacks both originality and comprehension of the real issues.

Charles actually was rather fond of the GG caper, what. Damned fine show. This young Harry the hairy would be tops as GG. Vote for the best, get what you see.

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion.

Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of whining.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock.

Quote:

role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature

So the aim is for a claytons republic.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic.

Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature.

And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion.

You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican.

I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  just manipulative emotional blackmail.  In every other context you would ridicule claims of 'real Australia' but you deploy it shamelessly for your own stupid, Bbwianesque purposes.

The very best thing about our current arrangement is that it is absolutely apolitical AND cannot be politicised. That the person of head of state is randomly allocated by birth into a particular family with a long tradition of providing the heads of state - but with no chance of ever having any political power or even say - an essential quality in a Westminster parliamentary system - is priceless. It cannot be bettered, not by politicians choosing the person nor by the whole electorate choosing.  No Republican model can deliver this essential quality.

The People's Republic of Orsralia..............

El Presidenta.........Benito Hillbonese.......the most intelligent person Orstralia has to offer............ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

An ideal end to a once respected nation...... :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable.

Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of just whining about it.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable. Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of just whining about it.

Why would that be my responsibility?

My bad. You are now in charge of pointless whining. Continue.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -

My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican.

Wouldn't you agree?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:30pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable. Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of just whining about it. Why would that be my responsibility?

Because you think (if think is the word I want in your case) the current arrangement is not satisfactory, Andy Pipkin.

https://youtu.be/WrfFQ9GCRmY

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:30pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable. Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of just whining about it. Why would that be my responsibility? Because you think (if think is the word I want in your case) the current arrangement is not satisfactory, Andy Pipkin. https://youtu.be/WrfFQ9GCRmY

So, if you think the current arrangement with interest rates/health care/petrol prices/etc. is not satisfactory, it's your responsibility to come up with a better alternative, yeah?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican. Wouldn't you agree?

Why?

Secular doesn't  mean people can't have a certain religion.  The sovereign's religion makes no difference to you or the millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, atheists etc.

Your argument is a rock solid Bbwianesque load of irrelevant twaddle. Again.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:44pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:30pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable. Perhaps you should come up with a better alternative instead of just whining about it. Why would that be my responsibility? Because you think (if think is the word I want in your case) the current arrangement is not satisfactory, Andy Pipkin. https://youtu.be/WrfFQ9GCRmY So, if you think the current arrangement with interest rates/health care/petrol prices/etc. is not satisfactory, it's your responsibility to come up with a better alternative, yeah?

Of course, Bbwian. How can you say that there could be a better system if you have no idea what such a better system might look like?

Or you can be be like Andy Pipkin, of course.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:34pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican. Wouldn't you agree? Why? Secular doesn't  mean people can't have a certain religion.

You don't understand.

It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist.

To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican.

You cannot be atheist, or any other religion.

That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution.

We understand why you are whining Greg. We're just not sure what the point of it is. Do you hope to achieve something by it?

Is this "inspirational whining"?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:53pm:

We understand why you are whining Greg. We're just not sure what the point of it is. Do you hope to achieve something by it? Is this "inspirational whining"?

Hi FD,
would you prefer another system of Govt. without royalty?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:53pm:

We understand why you are whining Greg. We're just not sure what the point of it is. Do you hope to achieve something by it?

Yes: I hope to educate some people.

A tall order on here, I know.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:53pm:

We understand why you are whining Greg

I'm not sure sore end does.  :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:58pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:53pm: We understand why you are whining Greg. We're just not sure what the point of it is. Do you hope to achieve something by it? Yes: I hope to educate some people. A tall order on here, I know.

Ah. "Educational whining."

I think people already know you lack a better alternative.


Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:58pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:53pm: We understand why you are whining Greg. We're just not sure what the point of it is. Do you hope to achieve something by it? Is this "inspirational whining"? Hi FD, would you prefer another system of Govt. without royalty?

Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example.

How about you?

Started a new poll

Do you want royalty banished from our political system?

Thanks Bobby. That is a good demonstration of the feeble-minded approach that has made the republican movement a decades-long failure.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:01pm:

Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example. How about you?

That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty.   :-[

Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.   :)

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:04pm:

Thanks Bobby. That is a good demonstration of the feeble-minded approach that has made the republican movement a decades-long failure.

Why - are you royalty?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:06pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:01pm: Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example. How about you? That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty.   :-[ Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.   :)

Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:07pm:

Why - are you royalty?

He's king of the sewer

Aussie is his prince Kings Consort

:D :D

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:06pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:01pm: Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example. How about you? That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty.   :-[ Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.   :) Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy?

Easy - your  introduction of gas chambers into the argument.
No one wants that.

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:07pm: Why - are you royalty? He's king of the sewer Aussie is his prince Kings Consort :D :D

Maybe FD does like Kings and Queens?

U
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:51pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:34pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican. Wouldn't you agree? Why? Secular doesn't  mean people can't have a certain religion.  You don't understand. It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist. To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican. You cannot be atheist, or any other religion. That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution.

Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist?

In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway?

You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper?



Isaacs, Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew.  As was Zelman Cowen.
Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:06pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:01pm: Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example. How about you? That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty.   :-[ Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.   :) Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy? Easy - your  introduction of gas chambers into the argument. No one wants that.

That doesn't make it a strawman Bobby. It is merely a demonstration of why the feeble-minded approach taken by the republican movement has turned them into a decades-long failure.

'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'.

Only the GG has 'power and functions'. The King may wear pink pyjamas and be brain-dead but that has no authority in the Commonwealth.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:12pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:06pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:01pm: Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example. How about you? That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty.   :-[ Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.   :) Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy? Easy - your  introduction of gas chambers into the argument. No one wants that. That doesn't make it a strawman Bobby. It is merely a demonstration of why the feeble-minded approach taken by the republican movement has turned them into a decades-long failure.

It is a strawman as gas chambers are the only alternative to your position -
which then makes my argument easy to defeat.
You created gas chambers as though without royalty
that was the only outcome.

strawman

https://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem


Quote:

This term is probably a reference to the middle ages, when people would build scarecrows stuffed with straw to use for military training. Strawmen are easy to defeat. In debates, people will often misrepresent the argument of their opposition, then gleefully shoot it down.

Talking about gas chambers doesn't make someone's argument a strawman Bobby.

I really find it hard to answer either YES or NO.
It's really a defaulted Question Poll.

Considering 'Royalty' of Kings & Queens are 'Masters of Ceremony' - not Political (Presidents, Ministers), not Military (Emperors, Empresses). They are in chief 'Entertainers' and hence why the 'Media' is focused upon them like a Soap Opera of Days of our 'Royal' Lives.
Hence also the Media world of Music/Entertainment in the USA being 'Celebrity' and trying to form their own 'Royal' bloodlines among them.

Throw in the fact that the 'Political' involvement of the Royals has been minimal.
I find it hard to constitute any 'Political' change here justified by the passing of a 'Royal'. ::)

Sounds like more 'Media/Mafia' shenanigans corrupting Politics to suit its own selfish agenda and narrative.

The 'Republic' they are trying to con us with isn't really a 'Political' one. It's just another poop-job by the Media and its Celebrities who 'think' they know Politics.

Maybe they want to 'usurp' the Aborigines (which they label 'black') with their Republic, from being handed back to them?
Maybe they want a Republic upon some Irish cliche because they can't think of one that would be more 'original' in its Australian and 'Southern' Hemisphere experience?
Maybe they need Australia to become a bigger international version of the Confederate South, so as to re-invigorate a justification of the Democrat North's existence - which is currently capitulating like a Politically Correct Gay/Trans fart?


I'm all for a Republic or 'whatever' in regards to this part of the world - if it is 'needed'.
What I won't stand for is these Media/Mafia Celebrities and their Industry trying to thrust a 'political' entity on our country - just to suit their selfish narrative and 'purses'.

Media: Stealing from Australia, Oppressing S.America and keeping N.America in the dark.
...like
Religion: Having stole from Asia, Oppressed Europe and kept Africa in the dark (continent).

The Media/Mafia (Big Brother) should just F*UCK OFF to Oceania where it belongs.
The Media and it's Republic is NOT THE TRUE WEST of Politics.

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:23pm:

'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'. Only the GG has 'power and functions'. The King may wear pink pyjamas and be brain-dead but that has no authority in the Commonwealth.

So, get rid of him.

Simples  ;)

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:13pm:

U greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:51pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:34pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican. Wouldn't you agree? Why? Secular doesn't  mean people can't have a certain religion.  You don't understand. It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist. To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican. You cannot be atheist, or any other religion. That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution. Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist? In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway? You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper?

We're a secular country.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:32pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:13pm: U greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:51pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 4:34pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:31pm: Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian. Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -  My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican. Wouldn't you agree? Why? Secular doesn't  mean people can't have a certain religion.  You don't understand. It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist. To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican. You cannot be atheist, or any other religion. That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution. Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist? In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway? You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper? We're a secular country.

Which is why we had Jewish and Catholic as well as Anglican GGs.

Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew.  As was Zelman Cowen.  Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic. Hayden was an atheist.



But you forgot to say how it matters to you what the sovereign's religion is.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:35pm:

Which is why we had Jewish and Catholic as well as Anglican GGs. Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew.  As was Zelman Cowen.  Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic. Hayden was an atheist. But you forgot to say how it matters to you what the sovereign's religion is.

My dear Ancestor ;)
And first 'native-born' Australian GG.
That's if any non-aborigines born here are allowed to call themselves 'native'?

I prefer the ancient Roman model with 2 consuls.

Politics in the Northern Hemisphere 'regardless' of what Political format, be it Democracy, Republic, Commune(ism), etc, etc - only empowers the 'individual' and looks after its own 'political people' to a lesser extent, not the people outside the political sphere.

We are in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.
That means its 'new territory' concerning Politics.
That means it is meant to empower 'the People' directly and to a lesser extent the individual.
Basically it is the total 'reverse' to Northern Hemisphere politics.

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:

I really find it hard to answer either YES or NO. It's really a defaulted Question Poll. Considering 'Royalty' of Kings & Queens are 'Masters of Ceremony' - not Political (Presidents, Ministers), not Military (Emperors, Empresses). They are in chief 'Entertainers' and hence why the 'Media' is focused upon them like a Soap Opera of Days of our 'Royal' Lives. Hence also the Media world of Music/Entertainment in the USA being 'Celebrity' and trying to form their own 'Royal' bloodlines among them. Throw in the fact that the 'Political' involvement of the Royals has been minimal. I find it hard to constitute any 'Political' change here justified by the passing of a 'Royal'. ::) Sounds like more 'Media/Mafia' shenanigans corrupting Politics to suit its own selfish agenda and narrative. The 'Republic' they are trying to con us with isn't really a 'Political' one. It's just another poop-job by the Media and its Celebrities who 'think' they know Politics. Maybe they want to 'usurp' the Aborigines (which they label 'black') with their Republic, from being handed back to them? Maybe they want a Republic upon some Irish cliche because they can't think of one that would be more 'original' in its Australian and 'Southern' Hemisphere experience? Maybe they need Australia to become a bigger international version of the Confederate South, so as to re-invigorate a justification of the Democrat North's existence - which is currently capitulating like a Politically Correct Gay/Trans fart? I'm all for a Republic or 'whatever' in regards to this part of the world - if it is 'needed'. What I won't stand for is these Media/Mafia Celebrities and their Industry trying to thrust a 'political' entity on our country - just to suit their selfish narrative and 'purses'. Media: Stealing from Australia, Oppressing S.America and keeping N.America in the dark. ...like Religion: Having stole from Asia, Oppressed Europe and kept Africa in the dark (continent). The Media/Mafia (Big Brother) should just F*UCK OFF to Oceania where it belongs. The Media and it's Republic is NOT THE TRUE WEST of Politics.

They are in chief Entertainers -

yes - that's true -
the public seem to love all the costumes they wear and
the trumpets playing - what a facade of utter nonsense.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:31pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:23pm: 'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'. Only the GG has 'power and functions'. The King may wear pink pyjamas and be brain-dead but that has no authority in the Commonwealth. So, get rid of him. Simples  ;)

We have, in 1901. They let him in to wander about with a half-grin asking people questions.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:55pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 5:29pm: I really find it hard to answer either YES or NO. It's really a defaulted Question Poll. Considering 'Royalty' of Kings & Queens are 'Masters of Ceremony' - not Political (Presidents, Ministers), not Military (Emperors, Empresses). They are in chief 'Entertainers' and hence why the 'Media' is focused upon them like a Soap Opera of Days of our 'Royal' Lives. Hence also the Media world of Music/Entertainment in the USA being 'Celebrity' and trying to form their own 'Royal' bloodlines among them. Throw in the fact that the 'Political' involvement of the Royals has been minimal. I find it hard to constitute any 'Political' change here justified by the passing of a 'Royal'. ::) Sounds like more 'Media/Mafia' shenanigans corrupting Politics to suit its own selfish agenda and narrative. The 'Republic' they are trying to con us with isn't really a 'Political' one. It's just another poop-job by the Media and its Celebrities who 'think' they know Politics. Maybe they want to 'usurp' the Aborigines (which they label 'black') with their Republic, from being handed back to them? Maybe they want a Republic upon some Irish cliche because they can't think of one that would be more 'original' in its Australian and 'Southern' Hemisphere experience? Maybe they need Australia to become a bigger international version of the Confederate South, so as to re-invigorate a justification of the Democrat North's existence - which is currently capitulating like a Politically Correct Gay/Trans fart? I'm all for a Republic or 'whatever' in regards to this part of the world - if it is 'needed'. What I won't stand for is these Media/Mafia Celebrities and their Industry trying to thrust a 'political' entity on our country - just to suit their selfish narrative and 'purses'. Media: Stealing from Australia, Oppressing S.America and keeping N.America in the dark. ...like Religion: Having stole from Asia, Oppressed Europe and kept Africa in the dark (continent). The Media/Mafia (Big Brother) should just F*UCK OFF to Oceania where it belongs. The Media and it's Republic is NOT THE TRUE WEST of Politics. They are in chief Entertainers - yes - that's true - the public seem to love all the costumes they wear and the trumpets playing - what a facade of utter nonsense.

Yes Bobby.
You're right.
The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals who associate more with something like 'Eurovision' and Sport than Politics and Military these days.
Leave Politics to the Prime Minister in Britain.
Leave the Entertainment to the Royals.

...now you see why the Democrats and their 'celebrity' novelty Presidentials are a corrupt political entity ruled by the whims of the Media.

Quote:

The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals

The French ones, perhaps?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:03pm:

Quote: The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals The French ones, perhaps?

We would never chop their heads off -
banishment is so much more humane.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:03pm:

Quote: The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals The French ones, perhaps?

Well, the French do have a fetish for tearing everything down and dancing in the ashes.

What's the score? 3 monarchies and 5 republics in just over 200 years?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:03pm:

Quote: The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals The French ones, perhaps?

Not really. The French Royals still dabble in the political/military side of things.
Germany forfeited their Political/Military/Religious empowerment via their NAZI last fart.
Now it has returned to its true European character (before Europe was oppressed by Religion from the Middle-East, etc) and does well at Music and Sport to name some.

France will give up the Political/Military/Religious ghost soon one day and also return to a truer European state of being.
Italy will have to do the same, but not until the Mafia & the Vatican gold have their last say.

Most other European Royals seem to see the writing on the wall when it comes to Political/Military/Religious affairs and prefer the more 'Media' interests of Music and Sport for starters.
Why chase a weakness, when you can follow a strength.

Declare Australia the kingdom of Boongolia and make the lady in pink our Queen

https://youtu.be/xGNYeZzXSec

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:08pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:03pm: Quote: The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals The French ones, perhaps? Not really. The French Royals still dabble in the political/military side of things. Germany forfeited their Political/Military/Religious empowerment via their NAZI last fart. Now it has returned to its true European character (before Europe was oppressed by Religion from the Middle-East, etc) and does well at Music and Sport to name some. France will give up the Political/Military/Religious ghost soon one day and also return to a truer European state of being. Italy will have to do the same, but not until the Mafia & the Vatican gold have their last say. Most other European Royals seem to see the writing on the wall when it comes to Political/Military/Religious affairs and prefer the more 'Media' interests of Music and Sport for starters. Why chase a weakness, when you can follow a strength.

That's true. The French Royals would be a bad example for them to follow.

October 1, 2021
For the first time since the Russian Revolution, a member of the tsarist family celebrated his wedding in Russia. Grand Duke Georgi Romanov said yes to the Italian Rebecca Bettarini in St. Petersburg today. Aristocrats from all over Europe traveled to the capital of the former tsarist empire for the wedding ceremony in the mighty St. Isaac’s Cathedral. The republican warlord, Vladimir the Nukes, begged permission to lick their boots.

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:08pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:03pm: Quote: The British Royals would be well better to follow the mainland European Royals The French ones, perhaps? Not really. The French Royals still dabble in the political/military side of things. Germany forfeited their Political/Military/Religious empowerment via their NAZI last fart. Now it has returned to its true European character (before Europe was oppressed by Religion from the Middle-East, etc) and does well at Music and Sport to name some. France will give up the Political/Military/Religious ghost soon one day and also return to a truer European state of being. Italy will have to do the same, but not until the Mafia & the Vatican gold have their last say. Most other European Royals seem to see the writing on the wall when it comes to Political/Military/Religious affairs and prefer the more 'Media' interests of Music and Sport for starters. Why chase a weakness, when you can follow a strength.

The Hapsburgs are more inclined to meddle in politics where they can.

However, Gibraltar will have the bull-dog spirit when the Armada appears off the British domain. There are two aircraft carriers, one named for the heroine of 1588.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 12:32pm:

To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable.

Quote:

To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us

I see this as the worst reason available but the one that everyone rolls out without anything reasoned to support it.

For a start I would say that the exact opposite is true.

I don't see us as a small snivelling people frightened by our own shadow crying about perceptions that nobody really believes or cares about.

Maybe Eurovision will kick Australia out
due to our Anti-Royal republic attitude? :D

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. Quote: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us I see this as the worst reason available but the one that everyone rolls out without anything reasoned to support it. For a start I would say that the exact opposite is true. I don't see us as a small snivelling people frightened by our own shadow crying about perceptions that nobody really believes or cares about.

So you believe in privilege by birth not merit?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:46pm:

So you believe in privilege by birth not merit?

It's the harsh reality of human existence that privilege by birth has always been with us, and always will.

Don't you feel privileged to have been born in a wealthy, stable nation?

'The Queen tributes: Joe Biden orders all US flags to be at half-mast until funeral of Elizabeth II.
The US President says Elizabeth II was a “stateswoman of unmatched dignity” who “deepened the bedrock alliance” between the USA and Britain'.
It almost removes the war of 1776
...all US flags...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? It's the harsh reality of human existence that privilege by birth has always been with us, and always will. Don't you feel privileged to have been born in a wealthy, stable nation?

But Merit is Superior 'culturally'.
And is only suppressed by a dictatorship of 'race' (bloodline).

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 1:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 12:32pm: To keep the royals is the same as saying that there's something wrong with us that we can't cope without an anachronistic, outdated system from 1000 years ago that has privilege by birth and not merit as the core of its belief. It's saying that we're too stupid to elect our own representatives and govern ourselves. It's time to become a republic. Now - who would we have as the equivalent of our Governor General? How would we decide? Would we vote as the Americans do for their president? We wouldn't accept just any wording for a new constitution. The problem would be to elect someone honest enough to be our governor general. I don't like the idea as per now of the Prime Minister deciding for us - and then both of them having the power to sack each other. We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable. All it says Bobby, is that no-one has proposed a model that we think is better. Why is the republic movement unable to understand this simple concept? People will not vote for a republic merely because they dislike the monarchy. There has to be something worthwhile for them to vote for, not just against. No amount of this pointless blather can make up for the republic movement's inability to come up with the goods. The Australian Choice Model The Australian Choice Model will allow every State and Territory Parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State. The Federal Parliament will be able to nominate up to three. We will then hold a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State - a vote for all of us. The Australian Choice Model ensures the role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature, with limited powers to safeguard and maintain the constitutional order and resolve political gridlock. Quote: role of Head of State is ceremonial in nature So the aim is for a claytons republic. Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature. And, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion. You cannot be Australia's HOS unless you are Protestant Anglican. I don't know how any reasonable person can find that acceptable.

Quote:

Our current HOS is ceremonial in nature.

Yes I watched in 1975 where the GG had a few too many scotches and done a throw out the government ceremony.

It was a hoot.

Where I can accept the foibles, intrici's and inefficiencies of a 250 odd year old but very stable and reliable system I feel it is very different to creating a brand spanking new system designed to be largely useless very expensive and possibly dangerous with zero benefit or a articulate reason / need to do it.

I would pass on that one thanks.

I can't help but think that this Republic that the Media celebrities want to push on Australia is something short of being 'authentically Western' in the political sense.
We're already seeing the 'North' Democrats of America lacking any true Western (Political) character with their Media narratives.

I would even be brave enough to say that the Republic they're trying to sell us is a Lemon Republic, especially when they have absolutely no idea how it should be, beyond some replication (copycat) of a northern hemisphere 'Irish cliche'. ::)

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? It's the harsh reality of human existence that privilege by birth has always been with us, and always will. Don't you feel privileged to have been born in a wealthy, stable nation?

But those royals weren't even born here.

If Charles was a tree-hugger and spammed the pollies with his opinions, he knows he has to shut up now. Same with GG. The superior merit of culture means nothing. Superiority is everything to DJ Trump, life president.

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:55pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? It's the harsh reality of human existence that privilege by birth has always been with us, and always will. Don't you feel privileged to have been born in a wealthy, stable nation? But Merit is Superior 'culturally'. And is only suppressed by a dictatorship of 'race' (bloodline).

Its payoff can be denied by a multitude of factors.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:02pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? It's the harsh reality of human existence that privilege by birth has always been with us, and always will. Don't you feel privileged to have been born in a wealthy, stable nation? But those royals weren't even born here.

Neither were some of the powerful sons and daughters of the mega-rich, yet undoubtedly, here they are.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 6:46pm:

So you believe in privilege by birth not merit?

I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years.

You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers.

When you are given a position of privilege at the top of the pyramid - you are alone.
The people at the bottom of the pyramid - breed.

The Pharaohs knew this to be true, but bent the rules a bit to breed incestingly.
Throughout history, bloodlines at the top of the pyramids usually are the weakest factor of Power, so much so - that if they are not 'inbred' (for lack of genetic variation 'up at the top'), then its blood killing kin blood for power.

The Dalai Lama is a popularly known 'merit' position of privilege - though I'm sure 'blood' comes into it as I can't see them choosing a Dalai Lama from outside the Tibetan Haplo-group anytime in the future.

When it comes to that lonely position at the very top of 'anything' - blood is the weakest factor and the flaw of such an existence. It is in essence, the ultimate racism.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers.

Most of her duty was about - as an example -
cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying -
I declare this bridge open.

Big deal - anyone could do that.
I'd do it for half the price.   ;D

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:17pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D

You'll need a Master of Ceremony certificate first Bobby.
Then there is the corrupt aspect of wether you're part of the 'family race' to start with. ;)
You could be the best in the world.
But this primitive world still caters to the racism of 'bloodline' when it comes to 'Power' (which race should not be a factor).

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:12pm:

The Dalai Lama is a popularly known 'merit' position of privilege - though I'm sure 'blood' comes into it as I can't see them choosing a Dalai Lama from outside the Tibetan Haplo-group anytime in the future.

What do you mean?

The Dalai Lama is chosen after mystical tests to determine if the child is a rebirthed reincarnation of the last Dalai Lama and a direct line from Avalokiteshvara - the bodhisattva of compassion.

Tibetan Buddhism, when it comes to the Dalai Lama, takes right by birth way further and into the metaphysical realm.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:20pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:12pm: The Dalai Lama is a popularly known 'merit' position of privilege - though I'm sure 'blood' comes into it as I can't see them choosing a Dalai Lama from outside the Tibetan Haplo-group anytime in the future. What do you mean? The Dalai Lama is chosen after mystical tests to determine if the child is a rebirthed reincarnation of the last Dalai Lama and a direct line from Avalokiteshvara - the bodhisattva of compassion. Tibetan Buddhism, when it comes to the Dalai Lama, takes right by birth way further and into the metaphysical realm.

Very true.
They choose the 'child' by those aspects.
Maybe throw some coloured powder into the fire to create a rainbow of colours to clinch the final contestant.
Other than that - they determine the child's 'potential' to be able to fulfill that role with dedication.
I'm sure they wouldn't choose some kid from the Housos with ADHD aspects looking likely the outcome after a few years.
It's close, the Dalai Lama 'lottery', but no cigar.

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:25pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:20pm: Jasin wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:12pm: The Dalai Lama is a popularly known 'merit' position of privilege - though I'm sure 'blood' comes into it as I can't see them choosing a Dalai Lama from outside the Tibetan Haplo-group anytime in the future. What do you mean? The Dalai Lama is chosen after mystical tests to determine if the child is a rebirthed reincarnation of the last Dalai Lama and a direct line from Avalokiteshvara - the bodhisattva of compassion. Tibetan Buddhism, when it comes to the Dalai Lama, takes right by birth way further and into the metaphysical realm. Very true. They choose the 'child' by those aspects. Maybe throw some coloured powder into the fire to create a rainbow of colours to clinch the final contestant. Other than that - they determine the child's 'potential' to be able to fulfill that role with dedication. I'm sure they wouldn't choose some kid from the Housos with ADHD aspects looking likely the outcome after a few years. It's close, the Dalai Lama 'lottery', but no cigar.

How do you determine a child's 'potential' when it's only 3 years old?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:17pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D

She was not the captain at your village primary school, Bobby. You are taking the mindless parochial yokel and dorky bogan act waaaay too far.
She was the head of state and head of commonwealth.  God help us if you were to counsel prime ministers every week for 70 years.

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:20pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D You'll need a Master of Ceremony certificate first Bobby. Then there is the corrupt aspect of wether you're part of the 'family race' to start with. ;) You could be the best in the world. But this primitive world still caters to the racism of 'bloodline' when it comes to 'Power' (which race should not be a factor).

Supreme executive power derives from
a mandate from the masses
not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-a6sovg_k

Bloodline at the 'Top' is a primitive 'animal' aspect.

The cultures that put 'Merit' at the top - have mostly always prevailed against those that are ruled by 'bloodlines'.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:30pm:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses

So the monarch can only act on the PM's advice. News travels slowly in the 17th century.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D She was not the captain at your village primary school, Bobby. You are taking the mindless parochial yokel and dorky bogan act waaaay too far. She was the head of state and head of commonwealth.  God help us if you were to counsel prime ministers every week for 70 years.

OK - but I could cut a ribbon with a pair of scissors.    :-?

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:30pm: Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses So the monarch can only act on the PM's advice. News travels slowly in the 17th century.

But the monarch can sack the Prime Minister as in 1975
and he can also give ministerial portfolios to the PM
in secret in the middle of the night without telling anyone.    :-[

nope, you left out the cut. then modified it. looks a messy job you did.

The GG and PM are subject to the constitution which was used as the reason to sack Whitlam. So Whitlam evidently had no proper advice to give.

The line between Royalty and Politics in Britain is more obvious than the 'blurred' one between the Democrats and the Media in the USA (in bed together).

Quote:

Time for a republic.

Whoops - 7:54pm too late.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/567/849/original/4dfe24cc3b08ae65.jpg

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:49pm:

The GG and PM are subject to the constitution which was used as the reason to sack Whitlam. So Whitlam evidently had no proper advice to give.

There is not a single mention of the PM in the Constitution.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 8:33pm:

chimera wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:49pm: The GG and PM are subject to the constitution which was used as the reason to sack Whitlam. So Whitlam evidently had no proper advice to give. There is not a single mention of the PM in the Constitution.

That's because PM's are American grovellers.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D She was not the captain at your village primary school, Bobby. You are taking the mindless parochial yokel and dorky bogan act waaaay too far. She was the head of state and head of commonwealth.  God help us if you were to counsel prime ministers every week for 70 years.

which is not difficult it's just a ceremonial role. Even you could manage it sore end, with a little help

Mimo the Mafioso is here.

Goodnight folks.

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 8:50pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D She was not the captain at your village primary school, Bobby. You are taking the mindless parochial yokel and dorky bogan act waaaay too far. She was the head of state and head of commonwealth.  God help us if you were to counsel prime ministers every week for 70 years. which is not difficult it's just a ceremonial role. Even you could manage it sore end, with a little help

She would just take a marmalade sandwich out of her purse
and give it to the PM -
you know - like Paddington Bear.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfiCa244XE

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 9:02pm:

Mimo the Mafioso is here. Goodnight folks.

Don't go.   :'(

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:

erm.. QE II didn't elect the GG. He's Horstralian.

The Governor-General is formally appointed by the monarch of Australia,
the Queen or King in terms of letters patent issued by the monarch at
some time during their reign and counter-signed by the then Australian
prime minister.

From Australian Federation in 1901 until 1965, 11 out of our 15 Governors-
General were British aristocrats; they included six barons, two viscounts,
two earls, and one royal duke, Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester.


Quote:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her [His] Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's [King's] pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen [King] as Her [his] Majesty may be pleased to assign to [him or] her.

(my brackets)

—The Australian Governor-General is an anachronistic position that needs to be
   abolished in Australia.      And now is as good a time as any.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/567/849/original/4dfe24cc3b08ae65.jpg

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 8:50pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D She was not the captain at your village primary school, Bobby. You are taking the mindless parochial yokel and dorky bogan act waaaay too far. She was the head of state and head of commonwealth.  God help us if you were to counsel prime ministers every week for 70 years. which is not difficult it's just a ceremonial role. Even you could manage it sore end, with a little help

So you just want a bogan to cut ribbons. And that would settle your soul and make the world right for you and bobby et al.  Not having a bogan ribbon cutter grates your sense of national pride. An Australian ribbon cutter expresses, finally and fully, who you are and puts your mind at ease with yourself as an Australian.

What is an Australian? Born here? Not born here but has passport holder after 3 year residency? Speaks no English but has an Australian passport? 4th + generation Anglo? Part Aboriginal? Italian mother, Greek father? Temporary resident for 6 years? Overseas born to one Australian parent? What?


What IS an Australian for HOS purposes?

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:50pm:

The line between Royalty and Politics in Britain is more obvious than the 'blurred' one between the Democrats and the Media in the USA (in bed together).

The MSM market leader is in a sex dungeon with the republicans - more than just in bed with, Fox are the Republicans propaganda arm.

A Sense of Duty Unsurpassed
Queen Elizabeth II’s formidable virtues create a problem for her successor, who cannot be as good as she.
Theodore Dalrymple

The sadness I naturally feel at the passing of someone important, who had, in a sense, accompanied me throughout my childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and into my old age, Queen Elizabeth II, is accompanied by a sense of foreboding as to what might follow. It might give an opportunity for political mischief-makers to make mischief, not for the sake of human improvement or happiness, but for the sake of making mischief.

In a way, this would be easy to do, precisely because of the way in which the late monarch had carried out her duties. When she was 21, she swore that she would devote her life to doing her duty, the duty thrust upon her by accident of birth, and no one could say, three-quarters of a century later, that she had not kept her vow. She was still performing her duty a few days before her death at 96. There must surely be very few examples of such single-minded dutifulness in contemporary history. That is why she maintained her popularity from the moment she ascended the throne to the day of her death. Her conduct was as modest as her position was exalted. She never made the mistake of thinking that she was an interesting or remarkable person in herself, and thereby became remarkable.

It is true that her working conditions were good, but good working conditions do not by themselves make a person virtuous. To retain a sense of limitation when she had spent an adult lifetime being deferred to, served, flattered, and welcomed by crowds wherever she went, was a great moral feat. No doubt her experiences during the war, when she shared some of the privations of the population, kept her on an even keel.

Her very virtues, however, have created a problem for her successor. He cannot be as good as she. Accustomed to a kind of perfection in the head of state, the British population, having no memory or experience of anything else (the queen’s father, George VI, whom she succeeded in 1952, having been equally popular), has come to expect such perfection as normal. The new monarch will therefore be under constant scrutiny and is almost bound to suffer by comparison.

The intensely dutiful way in which Queen Elizabeth II performed her role has, paradoxically, undermined the population’s understanding of constitutional monarchy. Just as many Americans now do not understand, or have turned their backs on, the role of the Constitution in political life, so many people in Britain no longer appreciate that the monarch is not a moral exemplar, to be revered as such. Charles III now becomes king not by virtue of his character, but by virtue of having been the previous monarch’s oldest son, and he would be monarch still if he were a lot worse than he is. Only if he were guilty of constitutional improprieties would he be removable: his peccadilloes are immaterial.

Not understanding this, many people think that Charles’s own elder son should be king because they see him as a better person than his father. They do not understand that the monarchy is neither electoral nor a moral beauty contest. The monarch is a symbol, not an exemplar. But they think that the queen was queen for so long because she was good.

And then, of course, there are also the republicans who want to fish in troubled waters. Starting from the irrationality of monarchy when considered from abstract first principles, they point to the deficiencies of any monarch, though this was harder to do in the late monarch’s case. In doing so, they forget that, in practice, people are infinitely more likely to be oppressed by their elected representatives than by their constitutional monarch, and indeed are increasingly oppressed by them every day of their lives. Like many intellectuals, they prefer to fight shadows rather than substantive beings: it is easier and more gratifying.

The queen is dead. Long live the king.
https://www.city-journal.org/queen-elizabeth-sense-of-duty-unsurpassed

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 9:53pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:50pm: The line between Royalty and Politics in Britain is more obvious than the 'blurred' one between the Democrats and the Media in the USA (in bed together). The MSM market leader is in a sex dungeon with the republicans - more than just in bed with, Fox are the Republicans propaganda arm.

We need law and order.
Always remember -
love is just a kiss away -
rape and murder is just a shot away:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kl6q_9qZOs

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 7:17pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D

Pure cultural Marxism, right there.

Terrible.

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:17pm: Frank wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 7:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 6:46pm: So you believe in privilege by birth not merit? I don't think you would have been able to do what QEII has done for 70 years. You are lucky - and privileged - for having next to no duty, certainly nothing even remotely approaching hers. Most of her duty was about - as an example - cutting a ribbon at a bridge and saying - I declare this bridge open. Big deal - anyone could do that. I'd do it for half the price.   ;D Pure cultural Marxism, right there. Terrible.

I see this as a profit driven competitive market offer, couldn't get further from Marxism or culture..

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 11:17pm:

I see this as a profit driven competitive market offer, couldn't get further from Marxism or culture..

How about if they make me the new King of Australia?
We could organise a ceremony where
I receive a sword from the lady of the lake -
and to the sound of trumpets we'll have King Bobby.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o4viqGUtrw

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 11:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2022 at 11:17pm: I see this as a profit driven competitive market offer, couldn't get further from Marxism or culture.. How about if they make me the new King of Australia? We could organise a ceremony where I receive a sword from the lady of the lake - and to the sound of trumpets we'll have King Bobby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o4viqGUtrw

I like it better Idea than a President and how inspiring to have gone from Bobby the Bat to King Bobby I

Well done - congratulations.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 11:55pm:

I like it better Idea than a President and how inspiring to have gone from Bobby the Bat to King Bobby I Well done - congratulations.

Arise - Sir Dnarever.

This poll is nonsense (Blobby as usual). They have no influence at all..........you dummy.

Hey. Fuzzy's back! 8-)

Jasin wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 9:57am:

Hey. Fuzzy's back! 8-)

Some people think that Fuzzy is IQ.      ;)

.. but we're an anarcho-syndicalist radical collective - we don't know no king... who made you king anyway?  Daft water ceremonies with some bint lying in a pond don't make a king...

I thought that when Charles became King that Australia would most likely move to become a Republic, but I have changed my mind.

I think Donald Trump has made the world realise that some Republics are a putrid mess.

Perhaps we are better off here in Oz to stick to a system that on the whole works pretty well?

Lifetime Plenipotentiary President Grappler I sounds about right...

Vote For Me Once!  Vote For Me Forever!

I promise two chickens in every pot, two chicks in every bed, the return of the stolen billions in the future fund, the dismantling of the privileged overclass and their reduction to selling their ideas on street corners in return for donations, a place at the table for all,  a rational new approach to immigration and future planning for infrastructure that will actually do something, a new approach to the Indigenous problems, and that under no circumstances will I play favourites or take off to a country without extradition treaty with the national treasury.....

We need a strong hand at the helm.... not some lackey of either the lunatic feminists or the equally lunatic capitalists.... a man strong enough to stand for what he believes and believe what he stands for.... a man of experience... of rare talent.... and one who can reply 'Bullshit!" to the latest ratbag idea that someone thinks should take over the country..... I will hold those in government office accountable, they and their lackeys in the public service....Federal ICAC will have the funds it needs to watch over all activities.... and to take action when needed ... land claims will be settled once and for all and will not remain a bleeding, weeping sore on the arse of this nation trying to find its feet and go about its business.. take it or leave it, Jacky-Jacky - your time has gone and it's now the 21st Century.... get with the program or buggar off to that Queensland Gulag up there to learn the local ways... see how you go then...

Heeeey - wonder it they'll make a tourist route out of those spots where they ambushed Chinese gold diggers and ate them.... piles of bones, you know.... part of the frontier wars ... ::)  ::)  ::)

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:16am:

Jasin wrote on Sep 12th, 2022 at 9:57am: Hey. Fuzzy's back! 8-) Some people think that Fuzzy is IQ.      ;)

Many here have an IQ that is Fuzzy ..... just saying...

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:59am:

I thought that when Charles became King that Australia would most likely move to become a Republic, but I have changed my mind. I think Donald trump has made the world realise that some Republics are a putrid mess. Perhaps we are better off here in Oz to stick to a system that on the whole works pretty well?

I think we need to get rid of those 'state governors and the governor-general' things - we are no longer a subject race prone to the whim of some ruling despot... and these have descended into nothing more than jobs for the mates and for political statements such as 'give the job to another sheila' .. nothing but empty bullshit these days and of no real value other than giving another mate a deep suck on the public purse for life.

Every Australian's home is his castle.... it should not be perverted into his arsehole to suit the next round of woke and social science Newspeak idiocy doing the rounds ...

Get your hands off the home and family and livelihoods of all Australians....

BOTR ...

Quote:

Time for a republic.

My Guess

9:30 am on the 20th March 2093.

The forecast temperature for that morning will be 123.2 Deg C. Yes a nice cool morning for a change.

The Major news is the solution for all bat viruses announced. Yes all bat species are extinct.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:51am:

.. but we're an anarcho-syndicalist radical collective - we don't know no king... who made you king anyway?  Daft water ceremonies with some bint lying in a pond don't make a king...

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/18/strange-women-lying-in-ponds-distributing-swords-is-no-basis-for-a-system-of-government/

    King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

    Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    Arthur: Be quiet!

    Dennis: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

    Arthur: Shut up!

    Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-a6sovg_k

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:59am:

I think Donald Trump has made the world realise that some Republics are a putrid mess. Perhaps we are better off here in Oz to stick to a system that on the whole works pretty well?

Is it a monarchy when the King shuts his mouth and the elected GG has the power to also shut up.  Charles didn't want to be Defender of the Faith but is ordered to do it. William doesn't want any of it (as with Harry) but is ordered to submit. His father was ordered to marry Diana not Camilla which damaged four lives at least. Trump / Putin/ Charles III. Can I get a refund?

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:59am:

I thought that when Charles became King that Australia would most likely move to become a Republic, but I have changed my mind. I think Donald Trump has made the world realise that some Republics are a putrid mess. Perhaps we are better off here in Oz to stick to a system that on the whole works pretty well?

That's my general feeling too. Republicans need to show us the details, and how such changes will improve our legal system. I don't think they can. Because they have never approached it from that point of view. Of course there are those who just hate everything British. They don't mind the benefits though.

                                     Britain
                                  King Arthur
                                         I
                                         I
                                         I
Lancelot                ---------------------             Percival
USA                                   I                          Australia
                                         I
                                         I
                         Knights of the Round Table
                             Commonwealth


USA must return to the Commonwealth.

Kingdoms in those days were small like Luxembourg and Monaco today.
If the Lady of Lake granted a sword to Arthur then he had full legal title, backed by the Vatican and British steel. His castle was at Caddisbyrig (Cadbury today) and his realm extended far north.  He rests awaiting the day he is called forth to make Camelot great again. John F Kennedy was a loyal subject.

chimera wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 4:48pm:

Kingdoms in those days were small like Luxembourg and Monaco today. If the Lady of Lake granted a sword to Arthur then he had full legal title, backed by the Vatican and British steel. His castle was at Caddisbyrig (Cadbury today) and his realm extended far north.  He rests awaiting the day he is called forth to make Camelot great again. John F Kennedy was a loyal subject.

JFK was a filthy little sex addict that abused his position of privilege.
Besides doing a porn flick with Marilyn Monroe sucking him off (Move over Bill).
He basically made many enemies - angry husbands who eventually found someone with 'nothing in life' to convince to give JFK a few good shots to the head.
Bet JFK's wife was actually checking that they found their mark in the car with a smile.

JFK was a stalwart from the Emerald Isles, a sea dog and the mighty warrior and faithful knight who flung Kruschev and his nukes in the cauldron of fire. Yet today as of yore, do minstrels tell of his deeds and erections of honour in the western wilderness of Arthur's green pastures.

chimera wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 5:11pm:

JFK was a stalwart from the Emerald Isles, a sea dog and the mighty warrior and faithful knight who flung Kruschev and his nukes in the cauldron of fire. Yet today as of yore, do minstrels tell of his deeds and erections of honour in the western wilderness of Arthur's green pastures.

Are you saying that JFK was related to royalty?

He certainly had relations with Guinevere and the Lady of The Lake with much social intercourse. The Lady came from the bosom of the lake where JFK often would come. Some of the lads would act queer, some like queens and it was made hard for them. However, it's Trump who is rooting for the crown and JFK was Dem. with less firepower.

The knights of the house of Kennedy are related to the present King, 'Cam' Arthur of 23 Round Table Road, Cadbury Somerset UK. Please leave beer at the door, special tours on Sundays , gold coin please.

chimera wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 6:07pm:

The knights of the house of Kennedy are related to the present King, 'Cam' Arthur of 23 Round Table Road, Cadbury Somerset UK. Please leave beer at the door, special tours on Sundays , gold coin please.

JFK was an Irish Catholic -
he had no royal blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbY6Jf-l9Q

Be my lady of the lake
Come love me before it's too late
Be my lady of the lake
For the angel with the sword of death won't wait
The colours that I wear
Show me just how much you care
Lady

From 1232 until 1616, the O'Neill were sovereign kings of Tír Eógain, holding territories in the north of Ireland in the province of Ulster. A famous branch were the Seann Ó Cinnéide, philanderers and pillagers of hamlets and barns. They used the title King Cinnéide but the pronunciation beat them.

chimera wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 6:35pm:

From 1232 until 1616, the O'Neill were sovereign kings of Tír Eógain, holding territories in the north of Ireland in the province of Ulster. A famous branch were the Seann Ó Cinnéide, philanderers and pillagers of hamlets and barns. They used the title King Cinnéide but the pronunciation beat them.

Are you saying that JFK had secret royal blood and that
that was responsible for his uncontrollable philandering?

Fifteen-feet tall reptilian-like shape shifters from outer space came to Earth and took slowly took over our governments and entertainment industry for the sole purpose of enslaving the human race. These reptiles control us by creating wars and mindless entertainment to keep us distracted. Famous reptiles include Queen Elizabeth II, the Bush Family, CEOs, global banking leaders, Ozpolitic and all Kennedys.

chimera wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 7:07pm:

Fifteen-feet tall reptilian-like shape shifters from outer space came to Earth and took slowly took over our governments and entertainment industry for the sole purpose of enslaving the human race. These reptiles control us by creating wars and mindless entertainment to keep us distracted. Famous reptiles include Queen Elizabeth II, the Bush Family, CEOs, global banking leaders, Ozpolitic and all Kennedys.

That's true.

A shape shifter was captured on film at Altamont speedway -
he turned into a werewolf.


https://i.ibb.co/pjpQDKk/Werewolf-Altamont-10.gif

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 9:21pm:

So you just want a bogan to cut ribbons

I'd hazard a guess that any bogan handed $35B will look a lot like charles :D

Jasin wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 4:44pm:

Britain                                   King Arthur                                          I                                          I                                          I Lancelot                ---------------------             Percival USA                                   I                          Australia                                          I                                          I                          Knights of the Round Table                              Commonwealth USA must return to the Commonwealth.

Nailed it Jasin.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 9:04pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 12th, 2022 at 4:44pm:                                      Britain                                   King Arthur                                          I                                          I                                          I Lancelot                ---------------------             Percival USA                                   I                          Australia                                          I                                          I                          Knights of the Round Table                              Commonwealth USA must return to the Commonwealth. Nailed it Jasin.

Can nail anything to a cross.

Medals which were purchased to be awarded to knights and dames and were once valued at $135,000 are now worthless, according to the Governor-General's office. Malcolm Turnbull scrapped Tony Abbott's knights and dames program. Four waist badges worth $20,000 and a neck badge worth $15,000 were among the items being written off.
Then-prime minister Tony Abbott reintroduced the honour of knights and dames into the Order of Australia in 2014 with a round table of Gidgee wood. The knighted Duke of Edinburgh is gone and his chair is empty.

Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy?

There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons.

Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion.

Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone!

Flip

Flip

Flip

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:06am:

Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone!

This is not about the Royal family. Why don't you drop the anger and insults, and clearly state the improvements that will be made to our legal system by doing away with the Crown.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:22am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! This is not about the Royal family. Why don't you drop the anger and insults, and clearly state the improvements that will be made to our legal system by doing away with the Crown.

Is that your way of coming forward to show your face and state your case?

Well guess what pal...you haven't stated your case to retain the British Bullshitarchy at all. You've merely used deflection to avoid stating your case. 

Out of curiosity do you identify politically as right wing or left wing?

PS This IS about the royal family. Monarchy means Royal Family.

Flip

Flip

Flip

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:06am:

Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone!

There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:54am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it.

1. I apologise for not reading back. I've not been online for a few days as I've been flat chat here with work and home commitments.

2. I'll read back. Later.

3. As you may have guessed I'm pretty upset and angry about that lecherous immoral selfish passive aggressive and ugly insufferable POS and his hag of a whore and the revolting lazy inbred families they represent.

4. I have over the past few days been rather reflective (as well as angry) and I've quietly noted many reasons why we need to move forward. As a Republic. These reasons revolve around a certain subject matter which many Ozpoliticians (including yourself) have yet to respect : HISTORY.

When will you and everyone here realise this : We can't understand anything happening today if we don't know its context. Context is at the core of every discussion and argument we hold on OzPol. Context is provided by History.

The experience, perspective and knowledge of History explains the pathway of humanity's struggle to organise itself across geographical, cultural, religious/spiritual, socio - economic and political constructs.

I think of History as a pair of new spectacles. Up until the time you put your new specs on you think your existing specs are fine and you can see quite clearly. If anything you question the validity of the reminder letter that's come through from Specsavers. Then the day comes to pay for/pick up your new specs and you put them on only to find that you couldn't see clearly at all. You only THOUGHT you did. And that THOUGHT had become a convincing reality. It's time we ALL tried on a new pair of specs. We really can't see what's happening around us until we do. We only think we can.

Freediver ....History.

Flip

Flip

Flip

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 8:24am:

his hag of a whore .. These reasons revolve around a certain subject matter which many Ozpoliticians (including yourself) have yet to respect : HISTORY.

I deeply respect your opinions. What are they and what history do you mean?

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:51am:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:22am: Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! This is not about the Royal family. Why don't you drop the anger and insults, and clearly state the improvements that will be made to our legal system by doing away with the Crown. Is that your way of coming forward to show your face and state your case? Well guess what pal...you haven't stated your case to retain the British Bullshitarchy at all. You've merely used deflection to avoid stating your case.  Out of curiosity do you identify politically as right wing or left wing? PS This IS about the royal family. Monarchy means Royal Family.

I am not your Pal, even sarcastically. Why are you Republicans so bitter? I have stated my views of why we do not need a Republic, most recently in a reply to you in another thread which you obviously didn't read.

Your post may be about the Royal family, but the constitutional amendments will not change them, they will change our legal system and dissolve the Crown, which is totally unnecessary to improve our laws or our society.

As to my political leanings: my beliefs are clearly stated at the bottom of all my posts. And I vote on issues, that is why my user name is Issuevoter, get it? Issue . . . voter.

Hi Lisa,
it's a secret ballot so we'll never know who the 12 supporters of royalty are.
Still - that's their choice and to be fair we must balance up
the good and bad side of the equation.

On the account balance, Trump has $3billion and the Queen had $55mill. personally. She has a couple of corgis and chooks to feed. Trump pays for window repairs in Congress, Top Secret folders and some fence along Mexico.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:54am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it.

The vote is actually very close 11 to 12.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/567/958/original/f19cfe657869a6db.jpg

Ladies -
if you meet King Charles you'll have to curtsy.
I'm afraid to say - the law is the law.


https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/405/630/original/654f4bbc2a517137.jpg

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/428/416/original/d3f0a8996065f9d0.png

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/18/strange-women-lying-in-ponds-distributing-swords-is-no-basis-for-a-system-of-government/

    King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

    Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    Arthur: Be quiet!

    Dennis: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

    Arthur: Shut up!

    Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-a6sovg_k

I think we need a compelling logical case for change not a justification for not changing.

We need to see a solid workable model that people would be willing to support.

Note: what we have is one of the most reliable robust most successful systems on the planet. We are for instance far superior to the republic of the USA (just look at their current mess), We are better than any Banana republic, better than any dictatorial republic. We are at worst on par with the very best world systems. If we change why would it need to be to a republic model which have proven a real mixed bag clearly with more failure stories than successes.

We need to see some form of cost justification. What is the bang for Bucks in all this. Most of the past discussion seems to conclude that we spend a shite load of money and if we are real lucky we don't lose too much.

We need to see critical role functions, expected improvement analysis and control mechanisms.

When changing from something which is very very good the risk is that you have a lot more to lose than gain.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:22am:

I think we need a compelling logical case for change not a justification for not changing. We need to see a solid workable model that people would be willing to support. Note: what we have is one of the most reliable robust most successful systems on the planet. We are for instance far superior to the republic of the USA (just look at their current mess), We are better than any Banana republic, better than any dictatorial republic. We are at worst on par with the very best world systems. If we change why would it need to be to a republic model which have proven a real mixed bag clearly with more failure stories than successes. We need to see some form of cost justification. What is the bang for Bucks in all this. Most of the past discussion seems to conclude that we spend a shite load of money and if we are real lucky we don't lose too much. We need to see critical role functions, expected improvement analysis and control mechanisms. When changing from something which is very very good the risk is that you have a lot more to lose than gain.

But my opening post gave one example of the system not working -
care to comment?



Quote:

We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. That must have been because the Governor General was in fear of losing his job if he didn't agree? That is something you'd expect to find in a banana republic or a 3rd world country. It's totally unacceptable.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:12am:

freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:54am: Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it. The vote is actually very close 11 to 12.

Wow! No flies on you, Bobby!

issuevoter wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:58am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:12am: freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:54am: Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it. The vote is actually very close 11 to 12. Wow! No flies on you, Bobby!

But FD said  "no-one is falling for it"

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:20am:

I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

William the Conqueror said he was king of England because the old dying king mumbled something to him and the same to Harold. George Washington said he lobbed more bullets than the Poms and it's all mine..mine !

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:43am:

We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public.

This outrageous abuse of hardworking taxpayers is intolerable. Just because he's voted in by the people for his popular policies for the population
...
erm cof cof
that's being a republic ..whoops

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 7:06am:

Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone!

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 8:50pm:

which is not difficult it's just a ceremonial role. Even you could manage it sore end, with a little help

So you just want a bogan to cut ribbons. And that would settle your soul and make the world right for you and bobby et al.  Not having a bogan ribbon cutter grates your sense of national pride. An Australian ribbon cutter expresses, finally and fully, who you are and puts your mind at ease with yourself as an Australian.

What is an Australian? Born here? Not born here but has passport holder after 3 year residency? Speaks no English but has an Australian passport? 4th + generation Anglo? Part Aboriginal? Italian mother, Greek father? Temporary resident for 6 years? Overseas born to one Australian parent? What?


What IS an Australian for HOS purposes?  The same people who denigrate nationalism in every other context are fervent nationalists when it come to the HOS.  The same people who identify Australians as beer swilling racists are calling for "one of us' to be HOS.


Also
How to select a HOS if hereditary monarchy is to be replaced? How do you make the choice as non-political as what you want to replace?  The biggest problem with the Americal model is that it combines the HOS and the head of government in the same person.

They probably won't give Trump a firing squad but Charles well knows about Charles I being executed and Louis XVI at the guillotine. This will focus his mind more than back-stabbing in the Parliament party rooms.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:22am:

I think we need a compelling logical case for change not a justification for not changing. We need to see a solid workable model that people would be willing to support. Note: what we have is one of the most reliable robust most successful systems on the planet. We are for instance far superior to the republic of the USA (just look at their current mess), We are better than any Banana republic, better than any dictatorial republic. We are at worst on par with the very best world systems. If we change why would it need to be to a republic model which have proven a real mixed bag clearly with more failure stories than successes. We need to see some form of cost justification. What is the bang for Bucks in all this. Most of the past discussion seems to conclude that we spend a shite load of money and if we are real lucky we don't lose too much. We need to see critical role functions, expected improvement analysis and control mechanisms. When changing from something which is very very good the risk is that you have a lot more to lose than gain.

I agree ducky.


Here's an Idea: we should invite Princess Mary's second born, Isabella, to be our monarch. She is Australian.

Cnut (/kəˈnjuːt/; Old English: Cnut cyning;  died 12 November 1035, also known as Cnut the Great and Canute, was King of England from 1016, King of Denmark from 1018.

chimera wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 11:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:43am: We had an example of an outrageous abuse of power that Scott Morrison was made a minister of 5 portfolios in such secrecy that not even his own ministers knew - let alone the public. This outrageous abuse of hardworking taxpayers is intolerable. Just because he's voted in by the people for his popular policies for the population ... erm cof cof that's being a republic ..whoops

ScoMo had the power to sack the GG if he didn't comply
with his request for secrecy.
The GG put his job ahead of the interests of the people.
That to me shows a lack of moral fibre.
It was hardly the act of a brave knight sworn to truth and honesty.

Then Scomo even more so. If GG obeyed the Constitution and tradition to be advised by the PM, do you condemn him for doing his job correctly?) Trumpy never tells fibs, never broke any law and nor do any republicans. Ever. ever

chimera wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 12:59pm:

Then Scomo even more so. If GG obeyed the Constitution and tradition to be advised by the PM, do you condemn him for doing his job correctly?) Trumpy never tells fibs, never broke any law and nor do any republicans. Ever. ever

I suppose all politics is ultimately a farce?

flip

The secrecy was legal as Scomo was properly sworn in. If the GG was a republican president protecting himself, would he act differently?
Think Nixon, Clinton not-have-sex, Trumpeter.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 10:15am:

Ladies - if you meet King Charles you'll have to curtsy. I'm afraid to say - the law is the law. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/405/630/original/654f4bbc2a517137.jpg

As a Christian I will only bow the knee to the King of Kings whose name is Jesus Christ.

Flip

Flip

Flip

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

As a Christian I will only bow the knee to the King of Kings who's name is Jesus Christ.

Dropped by recently, has he?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 11:04am:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:58am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:12am: freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:54am: Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 7:06am: Who voted to retain the British Bullshitarchy? There's 12 of you apparently according to the above Poll. Show your face and state your case. Go on. I would love to hear your reasons. Note : I'm RIGHT wing and my husband is LEFT wing and NEITHER of us want this inbred family of self entitled bludgers implicates in our flag, our anthem or our political system. So this isn't a Left Wing/Right Wing driven discussion. Edit : Oh how rude of me: Good morning everyone! There is 12 pages of people explaining the case Lisa. It boils down to absence of a case for change. Even with Bobby's attempt to frame the question as favourably as possible for a republic, no-one is falling for it. The vote is actually very close 11 to 12. Wow! No flies on you, Bobby! But FD said  "no-one is falling for it"

Half the country wants to stick with the current system. The other half doesn't like any of the proposed alternatives.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 11:04am: But FD said  "no-one is falling for it" Half the country wants to stick with the current system. The other half doesn't like any of the proposed alternatives.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is
no basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses,
not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:15am: Ladies - if you meet King Charles you'll have to curtsy. I'm afraid to say - the law is the law. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/405/630/original/654f4bbc2a517137.jpg As a Christian I will only bow the knee to the King of Kings whose name is Jesus Christ.

Commoners share sovereignty with the monarch and so bow. It is the aristocracy that must kneel.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 6:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 11:04am: But FD said  "no-one is falling for it" Half the country wants to stick with the current system. The other half doesn't like any of the proposed alternatives. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Our HoS won’t have any executive power.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 10:15am: Ladies - if you meet King Charles you'll have to curtsy. I'm afraid to say - the law is the law. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/115/405/630/original/654f4bbc2a517137.jpg As a Christian I will only bow the knee to the King of Kings whose name is Jesus Christ.

You sound like one of those bearded jihadis in the dock.   :D :D :D

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2022 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 6:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2022 at 11:04am: But FD said  "no-one is falling for it" Half the country wants to stick with the current system. The other half doesn't like any of the proposed alternatives. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

That is soo stupid, Bobby, that I am guessing you are knowingly unserious.