Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Fran wrote
>> Max wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>>>>> there should be a republic.
>>>>
>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>>>>
>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>>>>> head of state.
>>>>
>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the same
>>> system of government and laws,
>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>> Our system is unique.

> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism,

Nothing slight about a federal system.

> but most of what we have here is from England.

Wrong. as always.

> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia,

Bullshit it does.

> and the whole legal system is virtually the same.

Bullshit it is. Some states aren't even actually stupid
enough to have the common law shit anymore.

> All of it is from England, except for the federalgovernment and the
> existence of states,

Wrong, as always.

We aren't actually stupid enough to have a bunch of senile old
farts, bishops and failed politician having any say on anything.

> and that is just because of the spatially large nature of our continent.

Wrong, as always.

> We are a child of England,

We grew up more than a century ago now.

> and to become a republic would be like disowning one's mother or father.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Petzl wrote on 7/6/22 9:10 am:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 22:22:24 +1000, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:

<Snip>

>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the same
>>> system of government and laws,
>>
>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>
>> Our system is unique.
>
> Australia's system of government is imaginatively described as a
> 'Washminster' mutation, transplanting the federal system from the
> United States onto the Westminster system of responsible parliamentary
> government.

"imaginatively described as a 'Washminster' mutation" ... by you, and
you alone, as far as I know, Petzl!!
--
Daniel

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:14:20 +1000, Daniel65
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>Petzl wrote on 7/6/22 8:44 am:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 20:30:06 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:17 am:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:47:24 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless
>>>>>>>>>>> the oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote
>>>>>>>>>>> first count,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of
>>>>>>>>> over 50%,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure that neither
>>>>>>>> of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going
>>>>>>>>> downhill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure that neither
>>>>>>>> of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of
>>>>>>>>> over 50% in last box, preferences take over with ALL votes
>>>>>>>>> gathered going down the preference drain again till they
>>>>>>>>> end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your
>>>>>>>> voting below the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have
>>>>>> awarded your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or, Three TNL candidates,
>>>>>> or, Three Citizens Party candidates, or, Three Sustainable
>>>>>> Australia Party candidates, or, Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or, Three Reason Australia candidates,
>>>>>> or, Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or, Two Federal ICAC Now
>>>>>> candidates, or, Three Australian Democrats candidates, or, Two
>>>>>> Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or, Four
>>>>>> Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or, Two Seniors
>>>>>> United Party of Australia candidates, or, Two Informed Medical
>>>>>> Options Party candidates, or, Two The Great Australian Party
>>>>>> candidates, or, Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency,
>>>>>> candidates, or, Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates,
>>>>>> or, Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or, Two Australian Values
>>>>>> Party candidates, or, Six United Australia Party candidates,
>>>>>> and, Five Independent candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to
>>>>>> get any of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have
>>>>>> to go anywhere near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might
>>>>>> disagree with your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major
>>>>> parties?
>>>>>
>>>> Most often
>>>>
>>> No, once your preferences have been used up, your ballot paper is
>>> expired .... or exhausted .... or whatever the correct word is!!
>>>
>> Becomes a *Exhausted vote*
>>
>Yes, so cannot be allocated to anyone else .... as you seem to think it
>will be!
>
I know preferences apply to above the line vote which 99.9% of voters
do!
Very suspicious therefore of the 0.1% that bother with a tablecloth
voting ballot you cannot open in the provided both.
However mail in Ballots make it even easier
Ned Kelly even sent a vote in!
--
Petzl
Gough Whitlam when Joe Riordan lost the seat of Philip in Sydney’s
eastern suburbs. “Comrade, comrade, how negligent of you. To lose a
seat in which there is not one but three cemeteries is unforgivable.”

I had an uncle that lived in Wellington. He voted Liberal all his
life until he passed away 10 years ago. Now he votes Labor.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't
>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>>>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being
>>>>>>> our head of state.
>>>>
>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>>>> We got independence quite some time ago now.
>>>>
>>>>> and have the same system of government
>>>> Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>>>> We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
>>>> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
>>>> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>>>>
>>>>> and laws,
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> and language. And have very similar culturewith regard to food,
>>>>> arts, sport and religion.
>>>> Bullshit we do.
>>>>
>>>>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch
>>>>> as our head of state,
>>>> Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as a
>>>>> second language and who are not Christian.
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>>>
>>>>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?
>>
>>>> Because we are, and the stupid poms too.
>>
>>> Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrationsfor the
>>> Jubilee like the way the Poms just did?
>> Yes we did. And much better than those stupid poms managed.
>>
>>> Bullshit we would. Our's would be shithouse in comparison.

>> You are free to bugger off there if you prefer they way they do things.

> Maybe I will do that

No chance they would actually be silly enough to let you.

> and I will still be able to post here,

Nope, the death squad would have its orders...

> so I can enjoy the greatness of Britain

Its a failed state. There might just be a reason most of them have left.

> and you and everyone else will have to sit therein the shithole that
> Australia is and suffer.

I only suffer from pathetic excuses for lying trolls like you.

> Have fun watching Eddie McGuire

Who ?

> and other Aussie fuckwits.

Like you.

>>>>> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think
>>>>> that.
>>>> Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
>>>> seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
>>>> state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.
>>>>
>>>>>> Who has no power at all in this country.
>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>>>>>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>>> is
>>>> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
>>>> referendum.
>>
>>> Maybe he could answer why Australia needs to become a republic.
>>
>> It isnt about needs, its about what the majority of us want.

> Lets make Arindam Banerjee, King Arindam Banerjee

Fuck that, the last thing we need is some curry muncher for a king.

> He can have King Malcolm's chair
> https://imgbb.com/x2QJfmw

I had that taken out the back and burnt so that
Big Ears couldnt park his smelly arse on it.

>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>> there
>>>> should be a republic.
>>
>>> There needs to be a debate before that. This position could help in
>>> that
>>> debate, to bring forth new ideas one way or the other.
>>
>> There can't be new ideas with an issue like this.
>>
> The Monarchy has kept Australia growng since King George III.

Nope, they have always been completely irrelevant.

Rod Speed wrote on 7/6/22 4:30 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>> Max wrote
>
>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>
>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>> decides there should be a republic.
>
>> IMHO, a Republic vote could only ever succeed if the 'correct'
>> format of a Republic is placed in front of the Voters.
>>
>> If the option is a. STAY A MONARCHY, or, b. SWITCH TO A
>> REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PARLIAMENT* SELECTS THE PRESIDENT
>>
>> I doubt that'll get up but ...
>>
>> If the option is a. STAY A MONARCHY, or, b. SWITCH TO A
>> REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PEOPLE* VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT
>>
>> that might get up! .... MIGHT!!
>
> And it depends on what power the president has.
>
> Unlikely to get up if the prez is anything like the US one but might
> if the prez has no real power like with Eire or New Zealand.
>
> But then you do have to ask why bother with the expensive of having a
> prez at all.

Yeap, the President would just about be Ceremonial, signing the Laws
passed by The Parliament.

But, then, what sort of person would want to just do that?? The position
might look good on your CV/Resume, but not much else!!

> It also depends on how spectacularly Big Ears fucks up and whether
> the poms have enough of a clue to bin him.

Yeap! I got a feeling that once The Queen bows out ..... that's about it!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote on 7/6/22 4:19 am:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 20:36:33 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 12:41 pm:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:45:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>>> Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
>>>>>
>>>> Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
>>>> LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
>>>> "VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
>>>> below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
>>>> preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
>>>> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
>>>> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
>>>> the last preference, preferences,
>>
>>> Where have you gotten this from, Petzl,
>> That shit rag the TerrorGraph most likely.
>>
>>> cause as I and Rod understand the system, YOU are wrong!!
>> Yes he is.
>
> I'm pretty sure he is .... but there is a slight/slim/minuscule
> possibility that he is correct!! ;-)

Nope, none with below the line votes.

Petzl wrote on 7/6/22 7:35 pm:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:14:20 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> Petzl wrote on 7/6/22 8:44 am:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 20:30:06 +1000, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:17 am:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:47:24 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

<Snip>

>>>>>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major
>>>>>> parties?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most often
>>>>>
>>>> No, once your preferences have been used up, your ballot paper is
>>>> expired .... or exhausted .... or whatever the correct word is!!
>>>>
>>> Becomes a *Exhausted vote*
>>>
>> Yes, so cannot be allocated to anyone else .... as you seem to think it
>> will be!
>>
> I know preferences apply to above the line vote which 99.9% of voters
> do!

Yes, and once their One through Six preferences have been allocated,
their Ballot Paper becomes an "Exhausted vote" and plays no further part!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>
>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>
>>> IMHO, a Republic vote could only ever succeed if the 'correct'
>>> format of a Republic is placed in front of the Voters.
>>> If the option is a. STAY A MONARCHY, or, b. SWITCH TO A
>>> REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PARLIAMENT* SELECTS THE PRESIDENT
>>> I doubt that'll get up but ...
>>> If the option is a. STAY A MONARCHY, or, b. SWITCH TO A
>>> REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PEOPLE* VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT
>>> that might get up! .... MIGHT!!
>> And it depends on what power the president has.
>> Unlikely to get up if the prez is anything like the US one but might
>> if the prez has no real power like with Eire or New Zealand.
>> But then you do have to ask why bother with the expensive of having a
>> prez at all.
>
> Yeap, the President would just about be Ceremonial, signing the Laws
> passed by The Parliament.

They do more than just that, some fools kiss his ring
and he gets to have visiting dignatorys piss in his pocket.

> But, then, what sort of person would want to just do that??

Clearly some are that stupid.

> The position might look good on your CV/Resume,

None need one of those after being prez.

> but not much else!!

You'd get to be gored by the kangaroos roaming the presidents house.

>> It also depends on how spectacularly Big Ears fucks up and whether
>> the poms have enough of a clue to bin him.

> Yeap! I got a feeling that once The Queen bows out ..... that's about it!

Dunno, the poms might be that stupid. They actually are stupid
enough to pay for those grossly inbred fuckwits even tho they
are stinking rich.

Petzl wrote on 7/6/22 8:46 am:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 20:36:33 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 12:41 pm:

<Snip>

>>> Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
>>> LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
>>> "VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
>>> below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
>>> preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
>>> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
>>> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
>>> the last preference, preferences,
>>
>> Where have you gotten this from, Petzl, cause as I and Rod understand
>> the system, YOU are wrong!!
>
> Might of been changed for this election?
> Before parties/candidates allocated preferences.

For some elections, you were only required to place a '1' above the line
..... in which case the preferences as decided by the Party/Candidate
would be applied.

But, even then, you could continue numbering above the line.

But that System changed several Elections ago (before this election)!
--
Daniel

On 6/06/2022 1:44 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Petzl wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over
>>>>>>> 50% in
>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going
>>>>>>> down the
>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>>> below
>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>>> your
>>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>
>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates,
>>>> or,
>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>
>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>>> with
>>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition that gives
>>> them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>>>  In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero values whose
>>> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
>>> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
>>> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).
>
>> Dai Le was the independent that ended up winning.
>
> She was only an independant because Albo stupidly parachuted
> that fool yank Keneally into that seat after she got dumped into
> an unwinnable place in the Labor NSW Senate ticket.
>

Why doesn't she just accept that no one likes her?

>> There was another  Vietnamese womanthat wanted to be the Labor candidate
>
> Yes, there were two of them who stood for preselection.
>
>> that got pushed  out.
>
> They both did in favor of Keneally.

On 7/06/2022 6:01 pm, Max wrote:
> On 6/06/2022 7:59 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now I
>>>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being
>>>>>>> our head of state.
>>>>
>>>>>>  So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>>>>  We got independence quite some time ago now.
>>>>
>>>>> and have the same system of government
>>>>  Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>>>>  We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
>>>> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
>>>> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>>>>
>>>>> and laws,
>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> and language.  And have very similar  culturewith regard to food,
>>>>> arts, sport and religion.
>>>>  Bullshit we do.
>>>>
>>>>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch
>>>>> as  our head of state,
>>>>  Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as a
>>>>> second language and who are not Christian.
>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>>>
>>>>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>>>>  Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?
>>
>>>>  Because we are, and the stupid poms too.
>>
>>> Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrationsfor the
>>> Jubilee  like the way the Poms just did?
>>
>> Yes we did. And much better than those stupid poms managed.
>>
>>> Bullshit we would.  Our's would be shithouse in comparison.
>>
>> You are free to bugger off there if you prefer they way they do things.
>>
>
> Maybe I will do that and I will still be able to post here, so I can
> enjoy the greatness of Britain and you and everyone else will have to
> sit there in the shithole that Australia is and suffer.
>
> Have fun watching Eddie McGuire and other Aussie fuckwits.

Who's Eddie McGuire?

On 7/06/2022 7:30 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 6/6/22 10:14 pm:
>> On 6/06/2022 8:42 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote on 6/6/22 2:47 am:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> Why not just live it up, watching TV,
>>>>
>>>> You ever checked what is broadcast in the daytime ?
>>>
>>> Yeah, but if you've recorded some half decent stuff from the previous
>>> evening .... and you get to Fast-Forward through the Ads as well!! ;-)
>>
>>
>> Try 'Beforeigners' and 'Trom' on SBS catchup.
>
> Never heard of either of them!

I dont' think either of them have been shown. They're in the stuff you
can see by streaming - both are very good.
>
> I do watch/record some SBS stuff!! (e.g. 'The Orville', 'Who Do You
> Think You Are', 'Dateline'. Looking forward to 'DI Ray' on Thursday.
> Sounds interesting.)

Yes about DI Ray - I thought that looked interesting too.

On 7/06/2022 7:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Fran wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now I
>>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being
>>>>>> our head of state.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the
>>>> same system of government and laws,
>>>  No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>  Our system is unique.
>
>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism,
>
> Nothing slight about a federal system.
>
>> but most of  what we have here is from England.
>
> Wrong. as always.
>
>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
>> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia,
>
> Bullshit it does.
>
>> and the  whole legal system is virtually the same.
>
> Bullshit it is. Some states aren't even actually stupid
> enough to have the common law shit anymore.
>
>> All of it is from England, except for the federalgovernment and the
>> existence of states,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
> We aren't actually stupid enough to have a bunch of senile old
> farts, bishops and failed politician having any say on anything.
>
>> and that is just because of the spatially large  nature of our continent.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> We are a child of England,
>
> We grew up more than a century ago now.
>
>> and to become a republic would be like  disowning one's mother or father.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

The majority of people have UK acenstry. And it's been that way forever.

The people make up the culture of the country, and that is a UK culture.

It makes sense to keep the UK head of state until such time as this
country is completely over-run by fuckwits from other countries and
cultures.

On 7/06/2022 7:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't
>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now
>>>>>>>> I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool
>>>>>>>> being our head of state.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>>>>>  We got independence quite some time ago now.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and have the same system of government
>>>>>  Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>>>>>  We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
>>>>> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
>>>>> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and laws,
>>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and language.  And have very similar  culturewith regard to food,
>>>>>> arts, sport and religion.
>>>>>  Bullshit we do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch
>>>>>> as  our head of state,
>>>>>  Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as
>>>>>> a second language and who are not Christian.
>>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>>>>>  Irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?
>>>
>>>>>  Because we are, and the stupid poms too.
>>>
>>>> Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrationsfor the
>>>> Jubilee  like the way the Poms just did?
>>>  Yes we did. And much better than those stupid poms managed.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit we would.  Our's would be shithouse in comparison.
>
>>>  You are free to bugger off there if you prefer they way they do things.
>
>> Maybe I will do that
>
> No chance they would actually be silly enough to let you.
>
>> and I will still be able to post here,
>
> Nope, the death squad would have its orders...
>
>> so I can  enjoy the greatness of Britain
>
> Its a failed state. There might just be a reason most of them have left.
>

It is still more important than Australia on the world stage. The only
thing they did wrong is let in so many ethnics.

>> and you and everyone else will have to  sit therein the shithole that
>> Australia is and suffer.
>
> I only suffer from pathetic excuses for lying trolls like you.
>
>> Have fun watching Eddie McGuire
>
> Who ?
>
>> and other Aussie fuckwits.
>
> Like you.
>
>>>>>> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>  Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
>>>>> seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
>>>>> state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who has no power at all in this country.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>>>>>>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>
>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>>>>
>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now I
>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being
>>>>> our head of state.
>>>>
>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the
>>> same system of government and laws,
>>
>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>
>> Our system is unique.
>
> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but most of
> what we have here is from England.
>
> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia, and the
> whole legal system is virtually the same.
>
> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and the
> existence of states, and that is just because of the spatially large
> nature of our continent.

'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart from a few
similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of power stemming from
the Monarch, we're very different. The Poms don't even have a
Cosntitution and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be like
> disowning one's mother or father.

LOL. Some children just never try to grow up and leave home. I'm not
one of them.

On 7/06/2022 10:17 pm, Max wrote:
> On 7/06/2022 7:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

>>
>>> so I can  enjoy the greatness of Britain
>>
>> Its a failed state. There might just be a reason most of them have left.
>>
>
> It is still more important than Australia on the world stage.  The only
> thing they did wrong is let in so many ethnics.

That actually improved Britain. Chicken Tikka Masala wouldn't have
become Britian's national dish without all those migrants.

On 7/06/2022 7:16 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 7/6/22 4:19 am:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 20:36:33 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 12:41 pm:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:45:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>>> Not if you  VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
>>>>>
>>>> Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
>>>> LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
>>>> "VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
>>>> below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
>>>> preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
>>>> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
>>>> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
>>>> the last preference, preferences,
>>
>>> Where have you gotten this from, Petzl,
>>
>> That shit rag the TerrorGraph most likely.
>>
>>> cause as I and Rod understand  the system, YOU are wrong!!
>>
>> Yes he is.
>
> I'm pretty sure he is .... but there is a slight/slim/minuscule
> possibility that he is correct!! ;-)

Nope, no chance whatever of that being the case.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>>>> Petzl wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over
>>>>>>>> 50% in
>>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going
>>>>>>>> down the
>>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>>>> your
>>>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>>
>>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates,
>>>>> or,
>>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get
>>>>> any
>>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go
>>>>> anywhere
>>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>>>> with
>>>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>>>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>>>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>>>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>>>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>>>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition that gives
>>>> them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>>>> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero values whose
>>>> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
>>>> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
>>>> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).
>>
>>> Dai Le was the independent that ended up winning.

>> She was only an independant because Albo stupidly parachuted
>> that fool yank Keneally into that seat after she got dumped into
>> an unwinnable place in the Labor NSW Senate ticket.

> Why doesn't she just accept that no one likes her?

Because that is a stupid lie. Clearly Albo likes her enough to parachute
her into that seat and see the voters in that seat dump her in the bin.

>>> There was another Vietnamese womanthat wanted to be the Labor
>>> candidate

>> Yes, there were two of them who stood for preselection.

>>> that got pushed out.

>> They both did in favor of Keneally.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Fran wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't
>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>>>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being
>>>>>>> our head of state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the
>>>>> same system of government and laws,
>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>> Our system is unique.
>>
>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism,
>> Nothing slight about a federal system.
>>
>>> but most of what we have here is from England.
>> Wrong. as always.
>>
>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
>>> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia,
>> Bullshit it does.
>>
>>> and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>> Bullshit it is. Some states aren't even actually stupid
>> enough to have the common law shit anymore.
>>
>>> All of it is from England, except for the federalgovernment and the
>>> existence of states,
>> Wrong, as always.
>> We aren't actually stupid enough to have a bunch of senile old
>> farts, bishops and failed politician having any say on anything.
>>
>>> and that is just because of the spatially large nature of our
>>> continent.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> We are a child of England,
>> We grew up more than a century ago now.
>>
>>> and to become a republic would be like disowning one's mother or
>>> father.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> The majority of people have UK acenstry.

It is far from clear that that is true anymore and its irrelevant anyway.

We stopped letting the poms have any say on how we do things
more than a century ago now and it makes no sense to have
some fuckwit pom like Liz or Big Ears as the head of state.

> And it's been that way forever.

Its far from clear that it is even true anymore.

> The people make up the culture of the country,

Yes.

> and that is a UK culture.

Wrong, as always. It never has been.

> It makes sense to keep the UK head of state until such time as this
> country is completely over-run by fuckwits from other countries and
> cultures.

Wrong, as always.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now
>>>>>>>>> I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool
>>>>>>>>> being our head of state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>>>>>> We got independence quite some time ago now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and have the same system of government
>>>>>> Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>>>>>> We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
>>>>>> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
>>>>>> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and laws,
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and language. And have very similar culturewith regard to food,
>>>>>>> arts, sport and religion.
>>>>>> Bullshit we do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch
>>>>>>> as our head of state,
>>>>>> Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as
>>>>>>> a second language and who are not Christian.
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?
>>>>
>>>>>> Because we are, and the stupid poms too.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrationsfor the
>>>>> Jubilee like the way the Poms just did?
>>>> Yes we did. And much better than those stupid poms managed.
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit we would. Our's would be shithouse in comparison.
>>
>>>> You are free to bugger off there if you prefer they way they do
>>>> things.
>>
>>> Maybe I will do that
>> No chance they would actually be silly enough to let you.
>>
>>> and I will still be able to post here,
>> Nope, the death squad would have its orders...
>>
>>> so I can enjoy the greatness of Britain

>> Its a failed state. There might just be a reason most of them have
>> left.

> It is still more important than Australia on the world stage.

Irrelevant and there might just be a reason why
FAR more poms move here than go the other way.

> The only thing they did wrong is let in so many ethnics.

They were also stupid enough to join the EU and eventually
managed to work out that that made no sense at all.

They were also stupid enough to try to avoid some of
their colonys leaving, most obviously with Kenya etc.

They were also stupid enough to get involved in
WW1 and had to be bailed out by the yanks, TWICE.

And they are STILL stupid enough let silly senile old farts,
bishops and failed politicians have any say on political issues
and are still stupid enough to had an immense amount of
money every fucking year to the richest people in the fucking
country and drunks like Liz's mum.

>>> and you and everyone else will have to sit therein the shithole that
>>> Australia is and suffer.
>> I only suffer from pathetic excuses for lying trolls like you.
>>
>>> Have fun watching Eddie McGuire
>> Who ?
>>
>>> and other Aussie fuckwits.
>> Like you.
>>
>>>>>>> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
>>>>>> seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
>>>>>> state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who has no power at all in this country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>>>>>>>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-headed_flying_fox

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 16:30:46 UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Max wrote
>
> >> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
> >> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> >> referendum.
>
> > Maybe he could answer why Australia needs to become a republic.
> It isnt about needs, its about what the majority of us want.
Needs are more important than wants, the province of spoilt and greedy brats.
Brats have no end to wanting.
They belong to US, not to any mature civilisation.
Besides, wants that are unnecessary can always be manufactured by cunning slimy moneygrubbing devils.
> >> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> >> should be a republic.
>
> > There needs to be a debate before that. This position could help in that
> > debate, to bring forth new ideas one way or the other.
> There can't be new ideas with an issue like this.
Not for robots, no.
Not all are robotic.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 17:12:52 UTC+10, petzl wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 16:30:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Max wrote
> >
> >>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
> >>> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> >>> referendum.
> >
> >> Maybe he could answer why Australia needs to become a republic.
> >
> >It isnt about needs, its about what the majority of us want.
> >
> Lets make Arindam Banerjee, King Arindam Banerjee
> He can have King Malcolm's chair

And you can be the Aussie God Petzlcoatl.

> https://imgbb.com/x2QJfmw
> >>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> >>> should be a republic.
> >
> >> There needs to be a debate before that. This position could help in that
> >> debate, to bring forth new ideas one way or the other.
> >
> >There can't be new ideas with an issue like this.
> >
> The Monarchy has kept Australia growng since King George III.

Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been instrumental.
> --
> Petzl
> As Winston Churchill once said;
>
> The Monarchy is important,
> not for the power it wields,
> but for the power it denies others.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:40:50 UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Max wrote
> >
> >>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
> >>>> is
> >>>> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> >>>> referendum.
> >>
> >>> Maybe he could answer why Australia needs to become a republic.
> >>
> >> It isnt about needs, its about what the majority of us want.
>
> > Lets make Arindam Banerjee, King Arindam Banerjee
> Fuck that, the last thing we need is some curry muncher for a king.
Aussies should be so lucky.
Gassy robots like Rod3po can be reprogrammed to sing praises.
> > He can have King Malcolm's chair
> > https://imgbb.com/x2QJfmw
> I had that taken out the back and burnt so that
> Big Ears couldnt park his smelly arse on it.
> >>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
> >>>> there
> >>>> should be a republic.
> >>
> >>> There needs to be a debate before that. This position could help in
> >>> that
> >>> debate, to bring forth new ideas one way or the other.
> >>
> >> There can't be new ideas with an issue like this.
> >>
> > The Monarchy has kept Australia growng since King George III.
> Nope, they have always been completely irrelevant.