Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 8:20 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 6:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the nightly
>>> news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and the
>>> repeated bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about anyone
>>> else and think your claim of people not knowing must be "deaf, blind
>>> and dumb" to be a completely nonsensical.
>>
>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has been
>> stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every everybody
>> contesting our local seat. There were article in the papers, interviews
>> on TV, their policies were forced down our throats ad nauseum.
>
> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.

That’s only because the bogans in your neck of the woods are deemed
functionally illiterate.
>
>> There was ample opportunity to study them to whatever depth you considered
>> reasonable. OTOH the stuff handed out at the polling place was just
>> "This is how we want to fill out your voting form".
>
> Keith, is there a point to this insane waffling you're running away
> with, or can you just not accept the fact that not everyone's world runs
> the same way that yours does?

FFS Darren, it doesn’t operate all that differently in your cloistered
world.
>
> For fuck's sake....
>
>

--
Xeno

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 8:20 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 6:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the nightly
>>>> news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and the
>>>> repeated bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about anyone
>>>> else and think your claim of people not knowing must be "deaf, blind
>>>> and dumb" to be a completely nonsensical.
>>>
>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has been
>>> stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every everybody
>>> contesting our local seat. There were article in the papers,
>>> interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our throats ad nauseum.
>>
>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>
> You don't live in Australia then.

The Merrimu Mesa is definitely unique!
>
>>> There was ample opportunity to study them to whatever depth you
>>> considered reasonable. OTOH the stuff handed out at the polling place
>>> was just "This is how we want to fill out your voting form".
>>
>> Keith, is there a point to this insane waffling you're running away
>> with, or can you just not accept the fact that not everyone's world runs
>> the same way that yours does?
>
> Perhaps you should take your own advice here nodz your little world
> seems not to bear a resemblance to the real one.
>
You’ve noticed! ;-)

>> For fuck's sake....
>
> As you say for fucks sake.
>
>

--
Xeno

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has been
>>>> stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every everybody
>>>> contesting our local seat. There were article in the papers,
>>>> interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our throats ad
>>>> nauseum.
>>>
>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>
>> You don't live in Australia then.
>
> You can't can't accept reality. Can you?
>
Darren, Darren, Darren, you’ve had difficulty with reality for the better
part of your entire life. That’s why you had to “invent” a complete fake
persona for yourself. Your reality is that you’re a dead set loser.

--
Xeno

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 1:19 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 24/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox
>>>>> has been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of
>>>>> every everybody contesting our local seat. There were article
>>>>> in the papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced
>>>>> down our throats ad nauseum.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>>
>>> You don't live in Australia then.
>>
>> See my reply to a previous post, very little junk mail here, I live
>> in the same postcode as Noddy, he is on "acreage" so even less likely
>> to get junk mail.
>
> We get absolutely none, and I couldn't be happier about that.
>
>> To see TV ads you need to watch free to air TV which I don't.
>
> Apart from the nightly news, me either.
>
> The only political advertising I saw during the campaign was the stuff
> that was in the Herald-Sun, which I read daily, which was mostly Clive
> Palmer's bullshit, the stuff on the telly during the nightly news, which
> for the most part was Liberal "There's a hole in your bucket" or "It
> won't be easy under Albanese" bullshit, or the *one* time I got an
> unsolicited text message from the UAP on my phone on the Friday before
> polling day.
>
> That's it. Nothing else, and I couldn't even tell you what parties or
> individuals were standing in my electorate other than seeing the names
> on the ballet when I filled in my postal vote. I couldn't tell you
> *what* their policies were, or who they represented.
>
> According to Keefy that apparently means I don't live in Straya.

You voted yet you have no idea what the candidates stood for? The libs love
sheeple like you. Yes Darren, your *reality* is way different to mine, no
wonder you had to do a reset and create a whole new fake persona.
>

--
Xeno

On 24/05/2022 9:33 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>>>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that there
>>>>> was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
>>>>> reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
>>>>> granted anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>>>> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around. Just
>>>> for something to do, mind you.
>>>>
>>>> My only concerns are
>>>>
>>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>>
>>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>>
>> I thought this went back further, like when we told Huwaei(?) they wont
>> be participating on the build of the %g Network because of % Eyes fears?
>
> They weren't happy but they accepted it and didn't retaliate at that
> point. Morrison backing Trump's line is what really pissed 'em off,
> IIRC they penalised some of our imports shortly after and their govt
> officials refused to talk to our lot. Whatever the trigger point
> diplomacy was never Morrison's strong point and he never made the
> slightest attempt to cool the relationship down.
>>
>>>> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
>>>> party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
>>>> Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate chop in
>>>> the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us defenceless.
>>>
>>> We're already way behind on defence (no armed drones, no long range
>>> missiles, etc) which isn't likely to change anytime soon.
>>
>> Maybe not now, but
>> https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/joint/new-missile-strike-capabilities-announced
>
> What's it's range and accuracy? Apparently the Russian's can lob
> missiles on strategic targets from a long way off as they've
> demonstrated in Ukraine.

RAAF: From the link above: "“The JASSM-ER will enable the FA-18F Super
Hornet, and in future the F-35A Lightning II, to engage targets at a
range of 900km.”

Same missile, different designation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

RAN: the Naval Strike Missile is apparently good for around 200k
depending on it's strike profile... yet it seems the above missile can
be stuffed into a MK-41 VLS.

and Tomahawks
:https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42408/australia-to-buy-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-will-get-at-least-eight-nuclear-submarines

Then this:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2022/2022/05/australia-to-upgrade-collins-submarines-with-tomahawk-missiles/

How much of all this is true, I dont know, I'm just an interested observer.

>>>> 3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
>>>> offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear powered
>>>> subs?
>>>
>>> Labor supports AUKUS however we'd be getting nuclear subs much sooner
>>> if the Happy Clapper had stuck with the French who could've supplied
>>> same. The real problem is that all parties (including the Libs) have
>>> a ban on Australian based nuclear power. The difference being the
>>> AUKUS subs' reactors are supposed to last the life of the sub.
>>
>> Not too sure how the french subs would have worked now. They, like the
>> Collins class, dont have the endurance to operate for weeks/months in
>> the South china Sea. Nuclear powered french subs? They would need to
>> integrate the US fire control system to utilise the MK 48 torpedo. As
>> they would have with a diesel/elec boat.. France dont use the MK48, so I
>> wonder if there was some issue there with the US giving France the info?
>
> We were quite happy with their diesel subs until the AUKUS deal came
> up (presumably they had the same constraints). IOW they probably
> stuffed up with the diesel subs which doesn't say much for our defence
> planning capabilities.

Nothing ever does.. eg *Seaprites*? NH-90's? HMAS Manoora? They have form!

>>>>
>>>> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?
>>>
>>> Rubber band guns probably! But who gives an FF since they're unlikely
>>> to be able to form any sort of alliance with Labor after the last
>>> experience with the Ranga.
>>>>
>>>> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
>>>> the rest of the crap is moot.
>>>
>>> Stated Lib policy was to *increase* it to 2% of GST if re-elected.
>>> USA spends 3.5%, Russia spends 4%.
>
> Bugger, I meant GDP.

I got it.. :)

>> I thought we were at 2.2% now.
>
> Should've put that in past tense (it's been a while since I read it).
> It's been below 2% in fairly recent times and a mere token increase
> does bugger all for our capabilities....
> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=AU
>>>>
>>>> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>>>> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>>>> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>>>> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>>>> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
>>>
>>> Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
>>> Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair chance
>>>> Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
>>>> Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
>>>> Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
>>>> we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
>>>> It will all end in tears.. :-)
>>>
>>> Your paranoia is showing. China isn't likely to invade anyone now
>>> they've seen what's happening to Putrid in Ukraine. What China mainly
>>> wants is economic superiority over the US, which also requires a
>>> superior military capability. Hopefully neither will use it.
>>
>> Fingers x'ed. But we MUST be prepared.
>
> We aren't and nor are we likely to be any time soon. We're entirely
> dependent on the US coming to our aid and if Trump happens to get
> re-elected they probably wouldn't.

Trump.. God no!!! Still, if we have a decent stockpile of quality long
range missiles, and the platforms to deliver them, must give the bat
eaters something to think about. I still like the idea of a squadron or
two of B-21's at Amberley.

And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?

>>> The imminent threat is Russia and in terms of history repeating itself
>>> it's now 1938. Putrid has to be stopped, the world can't afford
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Obummer blew the opportunity when the little green men
>>> invaded Crimea.
>>
>> You have some lovely nicknames.. :-) Xi told Obama they wouldnt
>> militarise the South china Sea too...
>
> Like Putin, Xi lies. Hopefully Xi isn't as deranged as Putin.

On 23/05/2022 10:02 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that
>>>>> out until polling day.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>>
>>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>>
>>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>>
>>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>>> and have done for years.
>>>
>>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>>> the process.
>>
>> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
>> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.
>
> That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
> notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not to
> reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once they
> get up and draw the curtain.
>
> Who knows. The point is that *all* candidates have a preference
> selection that they want you to follow, which is why they hand out the
> cards in the first place, and I would imagine a fair portion of the
> public follow that advice without fully appreciating why they're doing it.
>
>>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to
>>> be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a
>>> first plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses.
>>> That way we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party
>>> that polled the most votes doesn't get elected.
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is
>> by electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has
>> exactly the same number of voters, there will always be a difference.
>
> I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make. The
> winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the highest
> number of votes.
>
>  The most
>> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the
>> post, Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable
>> electorates.
>
> Fortunately we're not the US.
>
>> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for
>> instance, you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result
>> is determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is
>> needed.
>
> I think ruling out compulsory voting and having IQ tests for those that
> bother turning up on the day will see the country's fate decided by 10
> people.
>
> The solution, I think, is easier than most people realise. Just have a
> vote for each candidate and drop the preferences. The candidate in each
> electorate with the greatest number of votes is declared the winner
> regardless of whatever the percentage of the vote total that number is,
> and they then go on to take a seat in the house.
>
> True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.
>
>
>
>

That's *not* democracy at all. A true democracy represents all people,
not just those who voted for a party that could potentially only
represents 50.1 % of the population. That is *not* a democracy.

What we have now may not be perfect but it's a damned sight better than
your grossly flawed idea of "democracy".

On 24/05/2022 10:39 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has
>>>> been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every
>>>> everybody contesting our local seat. There were article in the
>>>> papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our
>>>> throats ad nauseum.
>>>
>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>
>> You don't live in Australia then.
>
> You can't can't accept reality. Can you?
>
>
>
>

Faaaaarrrrrkkkkk...

On 22/05/2022 6:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 5:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 5:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
>>> gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
>>> live in a nicer country than their own.
>>
>> I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
>> community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
>> them staying.
>
> So let the Biloela community support them :)

They likely work harder than you ever have.

>
>> Its certainly an unusual case with the 2 children being born in Qld.
>> To me a child born in Australia is Australian regardless of their
>> parents nationality although I know that that might not be how the law
>> looks at it.
>
> And I think that's exactly what the parents were thinking which is why
> they elected to have children here in the first place.
>

They had a life here and will continue to have a productive life and
make a positive contribution to the community as Australian citizens ,
much to the chagrin of racist uneducated bludgers like you.

lindsay wrote:
>
>And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?

Probably not!

Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
nukes). The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.

If the Solomon Islands decided to invade us (with Chinese backing of
course) it might not even make DW news.

--
John H

On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:
>>
>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>
> Probably not!

That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
the paper it's printed on, don't you think?

> Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
> nukes). The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
> if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.

The attention it gets today is of it's time. The media is far more
focused on things like this today than they have been in previous times.

A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different it's
really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
completely ignored in the past.

He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.

> If the Solomon Islands decided to invade us (with Chinese backing of
> course) it might not even make DW news.

Yeah, I don't think so.

I can't see the Americans sitting idly by and allowing their bases and
whatever military technology they've shared with us, let alone the
largest outpost of Western democracy in the Asia/Pacific region, to fall
into Chinese hands without them lifting a finger to do anything about it.

They've already made it known that they're prepared to resort to
military intervention should the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. I
can't imagine that they would *not* be prepared to do the same thing in
relation to here considering they have far more to lose if we go under.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
>On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>
>> Probably not!
>
>That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
>the paper it's printed on, don't you think?

It's in the bit I snipped... which was the continuation of the likely
situation if Trump happens to be re-elected. NATO certainly didn't
trust him so why should we?
The Poms have history as well having virtually abandoned us in WW2.
>
>> Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
>> nukes). The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
>> if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.
>
>The attention it gets today is of it's time. The media is far more
>focused on things like this today than they have been in previous times.
>
>A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
>Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
>is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different it's
>really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
>Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
>attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
>completely ignored in the past.
>
>He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.

Ukrainian decent probably means Russian decent (since Ukraine was
occupied by the USSR post WW2 and at various times by Russia prior to
that. The difference is it's been a sovereign state since the
collapse of the soviet union. Russia has no claim to it whatsover,
even if it were being run by nazis.
>
>> If the Solomon Islands decided to invade us (with Chinese backing of
>> course) it might not even make DW news.
>
>Yeah, I don't think so.
>
>I can't see the Americans sitting idly by and allowing their bases and
>whatever military technology they've shared with us, let alone the
>largest outpost of Western democracy in the Asia/Pacific region, to fall
>into Chinese hands without them lifting a finger to do anything about it.
>
>They've already made it known that they're prepared to resort to
>military intervention should the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. I
>can't imagine that they would *not* be prepared to do the same thing in
>relation to here considering they have far more to lose if we go under.

Biden said it, plenty of others disagree with him, and if it were to
eventuate it's far from clear as to who would win.

--
John H

On 25/05/2022 1:27 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 10:02 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that
>>>>>> out until polling day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>>>
>>>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own
>>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always
>>>> lodge an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and
>>>> bullshit, and have done for years.
>>>>
>>>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of
>>>> the voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of
>>>> their particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're
>>>> doing in the process.
>>>
>>> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
>>> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.
>>
>> That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
>> notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not
>> to reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once
>> they get up and draw the curtain.
>>
>> Who knows. The point is that *all* candidates have a preference
>> selection that they want you to follow, which is why they hand out
>> the cards in the first place, and I would imagine a fair portion of
>> the public follow that advice without fully appreciating why they're
>> doing it.
>>
>>>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself
>>>> to be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a
>>>> first plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses.
>>>> That way we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party
>>>> that polled the most votes doesn't get elected.
>>>
>>> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament
>>> is by electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has
>>> exactly the same number of voters, there will always be a difference.
>>
>> I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make.
>> The winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the
>> highest number of votes.
>>
>>   The most
>>> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the
>>> post, Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable
>>> electorates.
>>
>> Fortunately we're not the US.
>>
>>> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for
>>> instance, you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the
>>> result is determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is
>>> what is needed.
>>
>> I think ruling out compulsory voting and having IQ tests for those
>> that bother turning up on the day will see the country's fate decided
>> by 10 people.
>>
>> The solution, I think, is easier than most people realise. Just have
>> a vote for each candidate and drop the preferences. The candidate in
>> each electorate with the greatest number of votes is declared the
>> winner regardless of whatever the percentage of the vote total that
>> number is, and they then go on to take a seat in the house.
>>
>> True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That's *not* democracy at all. A true democracy represents all people,
> not just those who voted for a party that could potentially only
> represents 50.1 % of the population. That is *not* a  democracy.
>
> What we have now may not be perfect but it's a damned sight better
> than your grossly flawed idea of "democracy".
>

if it weren't for our preferential voting system minor parties would
never be able to get any candidates elected. it's the preferences that
give them that chance.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 25/05/2022 1:30 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 10:39 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has
>>>>> been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every
>>>>> everybody contesting our local seat. There were article in the
>>>>> papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our
>>>>> throats ad nauseum.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>>
>>> You don't live in Australia then.
>>
>> You can't can't accept reality. Can you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Faaaaarrrrrkkkkk...
>
>

what's the name of that river in Egypt again?..

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 25/05/2022 11:46 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>>
>>> Probably not!
>>
>> That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
>> the paper it's printed on, don't you think?
>
> It's in the bit I snipped... which was the continuation of the likely
> situation if Trump happens to be re-elected. NATO certainly didn't
> trust him so why should we?

Fair point, but I think his advisors would be able to make the imbecile
appreciate that it was in America's best interests to not let this
country fold.

> The Poms have history as well having virtually abandoned us in WW2.

Well, yes, but that was an awfully long time ago now, and only as a
result of them struggling to defend themselves at the time. I can't
imagine the same situation ever existing today unless we were plunged
into another World War.

>> A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
>> Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
>> is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different it's
>> really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
>> Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
>> attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
>> completely ignored in the past.
>>
>> He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.
>
> Ukrainian decent probably means Russian decent (since Ukraine was
> occupied by the USSR post WW2 and at various times by Russia prior to
> that.

He said "Ukrainian" specifically, and in the absence of anything to the
contrary I have to take him at his word. Not that it means much either
way, as it was clear where his allegiance was.

> The difference is it's been a sovereign state since the
> collapse of the soviet union. Russia has no claim to it whatsover,
> even if it were being run by nazis.

Indeed.

>> They've already made it known that they're prepared to resort to
>> military intervention should the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. I
>> can't imagine that they would *not* be prepared to do the same thing in
>> relation to here considering they have far more to lose if we go under.
>
> Biden said it, plenty of others disagree with him, and if it were to
> eventuate it's far from clear as to who would win.

It would certainly be interesting.

China's military might is extremely impressive in terms of numbers, but
it's ability remains largely unknown to the rest of the world. On the
other hand American military ability has virtually been on display since
the end of WWII, and everyone is well aware of what they're capable of.

That's not to say that the Americans would romp home in any conflict
with the Chinese directly, but the Chinese would have a fair idea of
what they'd be up against in picking a fight with the Yanks and I don't
think they'd have things all their own way.

To be honest I think if the Chinese launched a surprise invasion of this
country (in as much of a "surprise" as it could possibly be) I think
there would be little we could do to prevent them from establishing
themselves here before the Americans were able to strike back, in which
case Australia would become the battlefield between the two giants and
all we'd be able to do would be to sit back and watch and hope the right
side wins.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/05/2022 11:46 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>> Probably not!
>> That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
>> the paper it's printed on, don't you think?
> It's in the bit I snipped... which was the continuation of the likely
> situation if Trump happens to be re-elected. NATO certainly didn't
> trust him so why should we?
> The Poms have history as well having virtually abandoned us in WW2.
>>> Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
>>> nukes). The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
>>> if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.
>> The attention it gets today is of it's time. The media is far more
>> focused on things like this today than they have been in previous times.
>>
>> A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
>> Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
>> is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different it's
>> really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
>> Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
>> attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
>> completely ignored in the past.

never on a scale like this though

>>
>> He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.
> Ukrainian decent probably means Russian decent (since Ukraine was
> occupied by the USSR post WW2 and at various times by Russia prior to
> that. The difference is it's been a sovereign state since the
> collapse of the soviet union. Russia has no claim to it whatsover,
> even if it were being run by nazis.
>>> If the Solomon Islands decided to invade us (with Chinese backing of
>>> course) it might not even make DW news.
>> Yeah, I don't think so.
>>
>> I can't see the Americans sitting idly by and allowing their bases and
>> whatever military technology they've shared with us, let alone the
>> largest outpost of Western democracy in the Asia/Pacific region, to fall
>> into Chinese hands without them lifting a finger to do anything about it.
>>
>> They've already made it known that they're prepared to resort to
>> military intervention should the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. I
>> can't imagine that they would *not* be prepared to do the same thing in
>> relation to here considering they have far more to lose if we go under.

yes

> Biden said it, plenty of others disagree with him, and if it were to
> eventuate it's far from clear as to who would win.
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 25/05/2022 12:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/05/2022 11:46 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to
>>>>> Aus'
>>>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not!
>>>
>>> That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
>>> the paper it's printed on, don't you think?
>>
>> It's in the bit I snipped... which was the continuation of the likely
>> situation if Trump happens to be re-elected.  NATO certainly didn't
>> trust him so why should we?
>
> Fair point, but I think his advisors would be able to make the
> imbecile appreciate that it was in America's best interests to not let
> this country fold.
>
>> The Poms have history as well having virtually abandoned us in WW2.
>
> Well, yes, but that was an awfully long time ago now, and only as a
> result of them struggling to defend themselves at the time. I can't
> imagine the same situation ever existing today unless we were plunged
> into another World War.
>
>>> A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase
>>> is of
>>> Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
>>> is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different
>>> it's
>>> really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
>>> Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
>>> attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
>>> completely ignored in the past.
>>>
>>> He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.
>>
>> Ukrainian decent probably means Russian decent (since Ukraine was
>> occupied by the USSR post WW2 and at various times by Russia prior to
>> that.
>
> He said "Ukrainian" specifically, and in the absence of anything to
> the contrary I have to take him at his word. Not that it means much
> either way, as it was clear where his allegiance was.
>
>> The difference is it's been a sovereign state since the
>> collapse of the soviet union.  Russia has no claim to it whatsover,
>> even if it were being run by nazis.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> They've already made it known that they're prepared to resort to
>>> military intervention should the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. I
>>> can't imagine that they would *not* be prepared to do the same thing in
>>> relation to here considering they have far more to lose if we go under.
>>
>> Biden said it, plenty of others disagree with him, and if it were to
>> eventuate it's far from clear as to who would win.
>
> It would certainly be interesting.
>
> China's military might is extremely impressive in terms of numbers,
> but it's ability remains largely unknown to the rest of the world. On
> the other hand American military ability has virtually been on display
> since the end of WWII, and everyone is well aware of what they're
> capable of.
>
> That's not to say that the Americans would romp home in any conflict
> with the Chinese directly, but the Chinese would have a fair idea of
> what they'd be up against in picking a fight with the Yanks and I
> don't think they'd have things all their own way.
>
> To be honest I think if the Chinese launched a surprise invasion of
> this country (in as much of a "surprise" as it could possibly be) I
> think there would be little we could do to prevent them from
> establishing themselves here before the Americans were able to strike
> back, in which case Australia would become the battlefield between the
> two giants and all we'd be able to do would be to sit back and watch
> and hope the right side wins.
>

In that case we wouldn't be 'sitting back'. it would be like it is in
Ukraine. we would be displaced from our homes and have to fight for our
survival.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 12:12:13 UTC+10, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 24/05/2022 8:20 am, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 23/05/2022 6:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the
> >>>> nightly news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and
> >>>> the repeated bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about
> >>>> anyone else and think your claim of people not knowing must be
> >>>> "deaf, blind and dumb" to be a completely nonsensical.
> >>>
> >>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has
> >>> been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every
> >>> everybody contesting our local seat. There were article in the
> >>> papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our
> >>> throats ad nauseum.
> >>
> >> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
> >
> > You don't live in Australia then.
> we had no letterbox advertising material here. none! and for those of us
> who don't read newspapers or watch political interviews, how are
> political parties policies 'being forced down our throats' exactly?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A dyed in the wool sheeple type (NPI).., Do you even know what day it is?..

> >
> >>> There was ample opportunity to study them to whatever depth you
> >>> considered reasonable. OTOH the stuff handed out at the polling
> >>> place was just "This is how we want to fill out your voting form".
> >>
> >> Keith, is there a point to this insane waffling you're running away
> >> with, or can you just not accept the fact that not everyone's world
> >> runs the same way that yours does?
> >
> > Perhaps you should take your own advice here nodz your little world
> > seems not to bear a resemblance to the real one.
> >
> >> For fuck's sake....
> >
> > As you say for fucks sake.
> >
> --
> https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
>
> FUCK PUTIN!!

On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:12:25 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>
>> Probably not!
>
> That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
> the paper it's printed on, don't you think?
>
>> Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
>> nukes). The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
>> if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.
>
> The attention it gets today is of it's time. The media is far more
> focused on things like this today than they have been in previous times.
>
> A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
> Ukrainian decent and he's...

Oh look! A Convenient Anecdote. What a surprise!

snip unread

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 25/05/2022 9:12 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/05/2022 7:29 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> And look at how the world has helped Ukraine... Would they come to Aus'
>>> aid in the face of an attack from china? Who knows?
>>
>> Probably not!
>
> That would make any military alliance with the US or UK to not be worth
> the paper it's printed on, don't you think?
>
>> Ukraine is mainly a NATO, EU issue (at least until Putin resorts to
>> nukes).  The rest of us are sympathetic but it's all too far away and
>> if it wasn't for the media, out of sight out of mind.
>
> The attention it gets today is of it's time. The media is far more
> focused on things like this today than they have been in previous times.
>
> A bloke I was talking to recently about negotiating a car purchase is of
> Ukrainian decent and he's somewhat bemused by the whole thing. His view
> is that while what's happening in Ukraine now is a little different it's
> really nothing new and this kind of shit has been going on between
> Russia and Ukraine for decades, centuries even, and he finds the
> attention it gets today to be somewhat amusing when it's largely been
> completely ignored in the past.
>
> He didn't seem bitter about that in any way. Just somewhat amused.

What a load of ridiculous bullshit. Who do you think you are kidding?

On 23/05/2022 2:00 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:37:15 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 23/05/2022 11:16 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 22:48:35 UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you
>>>>> want.
>>>> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.
>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>>> Anyone that wants their vote to be allocated
>>> *exactly* as they want!. Too many treat voting as something they
>>> *have* to do, then grizzle about preference allocation. :(. Only got
>>> themselves to blame!.
>>
>> That *is* the old saying, isn't it? "People get the government they
>> deserve".
>>
>> For the most part I think that's largely true, but then the system is
>> stacked in favour of the politicians rather than the people. You're
>> compelled to vote by law, then you're handed a card telling you *how* to
>> vote, but then your vote may end up electing someone you never wanted to
>> see in office in the first place.
>>
>> In a country where apathy reigns supreme, it is the *perfect* system to
>> permit the politicians to control the people....
>
> Great stuff Fraudster! The election results from all of 48 hours ago have
> shown precisely the opposite to "apathy" by the voting public. It takes a
> special kind of blithering idiot not to recognise that.
>
>
>
> alvey
>

Indeed.
Derro wants to change voting process so only his team can win. He should
work for Sky news... they're fucking sooks like him.

On 24/05/2022 5:25 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2022 13:57:22 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 24/05/2022 1:19 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 24/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 24/05/2022 8:20 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/05/2022 6:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the
>>>>>>> nightly news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and
>>>>>>> the repeated bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about
>>>>>>> anyone else and think your claim of people not knowing must be
>>>>>>> "deaf, blind and dumb" to be a completely nonsensical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has
>>>>>> been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every
>>>>>> everybody contesting our local seat. There were article in the
>>>>>> papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our
>>>>>> throats ad nauseum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>>>
>>>> You don't live in Australia then.
>>>
>>> See my reply to a previous post, very little junk mail here, I live in
>>> the same postcode as Noddy, he is on "acreage" so even less likely to
>>> get junk mail.
>>> To see TV ads you need to watch free to air TV which I don't.
>>
>> We got more political junk mail than that from real estate agents
>> wanting to sell our house, and that's saying something. Also got
>> "Personal letters" (well personally addressed anyway) purporting to be
>> from John Howard and Anastasia wanting us to vote for their party. Maybe
>> that's because we are in a marginal electorate.
>
> What electorate is that keith?
>
Longman

On 24/05/2022 7:06 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 9:33 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>>>>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
>>>>>> reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
>>>>>> granted anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>>>>> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around.
>>>>> Just
>>>>> for something to do, mind you.
>>>>>
>>>>> My only concerns are
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled
>>>>> bad
>>>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>>>
>>>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>>>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>>>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>>>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>>>
>>> I thought this went back further, like when we told Huwaei(?) they wont
>>> be participating on the build of the %g Network because of % Eyes fears?
>>
>> They weren't happy but they accepted it and didn't retaliate at that
>> point.  Morrison backing Trump's line is what really pissed 'em off,
>> IIRC they penalised some of our imports shortly after and their govt
>> officials refused to talk to our lot.  Whatever the trigger point
>> diplomacy was never Morrison's strong point and he never made the
>> slightest attempt to cool the relationship down.
>>>
>>>>> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
>>>>> party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
>>>>> Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate
>>>>> chop in
>>>>> the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us
>>>>> defenceless.
>>>>
>>>> We're already way behind on defence (no armed drones, no long range
>>>> missiles, etc) which isn't likely to change anytime soon.
>>>
>>> Maybe not now, but
>>> https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/joint/new-missile-strike-capabilities-announced
>>>
>>
>> What's it's range and accuracy?  Apparently the Russian's can lob
>> missiles on strategic targets from a long way off as they've
>> demonstrated in Ukraine.
>
> RAAF:  From the link above: "“The JASSM-ER will enable the FA-18F Super
> Hornet, and in future the F-35A Lightning II, to engage targets at a
> range of 900km.”
>
> Same missile, different designation:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

That's a big heavy missile, i wonder what it would do to the range of an
FA-18, of course on a Poseidon it would be a different matter all together.

> RAN: the Naval Strike Missile is apparently good for around 200k
> depending on it's strike profile... yet it seems the above missile can
> be stuffed into a MK-41 VLS.
>
> and Tomahawks
> :https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42408/australia-to-buy-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-will-get-at-least-eight-nuclear-submarines
>
>
> Then this:
> https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2022/2022/05/australia-to-upgrade-collins-submarines-with-tomahawk-missiles/
>
>
> How much of all this is true, I dont know, I'm just an interested observer.
>
>>>>> 3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
>>>>> offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear
>>>>> powered
>>>>> subs?
>>>>
>>>> Labor supports AUKUS however we'd be getting nuclear subs much sooner
>>>> if the Happy Clapper had stuck with the French who could've supplied
>>>> same.  The real problem is that all parties (including the Libs) have
>>>> a ban on Australian based nuclear power.  The difference being the
>>>> AUKUS subs' reactors are supposed to last the life of the sub.
>>>
>>> Not too sure how the french subs would have worked now. They, like the
>>> Collins class, dont have the endurance to operate for weeks/months in
>>> the South china Sea. Nuclear powered french subs? They would need to
>>> integrate the US fire control system to utilise the MK 48 torpedo. As
>>> they would have with a diesel/elec boat.. France dont use the MK48, so I
>>> wonder if there was some issue there with the US giving France the info?
>>
>> We were quite happy with their diesel subs until the AUKUS deal came
>> up  (presumably they had the same constraints).  IOW they probably
>> stuffed up with the diesel subs which doesn't say much for our defence
>> planning capabilities.
>
> Nothing ever does..  eg *Seaprites*? NH-90's? HMAS Manoora? They have form!
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?
>>>>
>>>> Rubber band guns probably!  But who gives an FF since they're unlikely
>>>> to be able to form any sort of alliance with Labor after the last
>>>> experience with the Ranga.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
>>>>> the rest of the crap is moot.
>>>>
>>>> Stated Lib policy was to *increase* it to 2% of GST if re-elected.
>>>> USA spends 3.5%, Russia spends 4%.
>>
>> Bugger, I meant GDP.
>
> I got it.. :)
>
>>> I thought we were at 2.2% now.
>>
>> Should've put that in past tense (it's been a while since I read it).
>> It's been below 2% in fairly recent times and a mere token increase
>> does bugger all for our capabilities....
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=AU
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>>>>> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister,
>>>>> because
>>>>> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>>>>> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>>>>> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
>>>>
>>>> Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
>>>> Happy Clapper shafted.  Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine.  Fair chance
>>>>> Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
>>>>> Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
>>>>> Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so
>>>>> will
>>>>> we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're
>>>>> next.
>>>>> It will all end in tears.. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Your paranoia is showing.  China isn't likely to invade anyone now
>>>> they've seen what's happening to Putrid in Ukraine.  What China mainly
>>>> wants is economic superiority over the US, which also requires a
>>>> superior military capability.  Hopefully neither will use it.
>>>
>>> Fingers x'ed. But we MUST be prepared.
>>
>> We aren't and nor are we likely to be any time soon.  We're entirely
>> dependent on the US coming to our aid and if Trump happens to get
>> re-elected they probably wouldn't.
>
> Trump.. God no!!! Still, if we have a decent stockpile of quality long
> range missiles, and the platforms to deliver them, must give the bat
> eaters something to think about. I still like the idea of a squadron or
> two of B-21's at Amberley.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 17:09:03 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 24/05/2022 5:25 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 13:57:22 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/05/2022 1:19 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 24/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 24/05/2022 8:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/05/2022 8:20 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/05/2022 6:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the
>>>>>>>> nightly news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and
>>>>>>>> the repeated bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about
>>>>>>>> anyone else and think your claim of people not knowing must be
>>>>>>>> "deaf, blind and dumb" to be a completely nonsensical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every day since before the election was called, my letterbox has
>>>>>>> been stuffed with literature laying out the policies of every
>>>>>>> everybody contesting our local seat. There were article in the
>>>>>>> papers, interviews on TV, their policies were forced down our
>>>>>>> throats ad nauseum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe in *your* part of the world pal, but not here.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't live in Australia then.
>>>>
>>>> See my reply to a previous post, very little junk mail here, I live in
>>>> the same postcode as Noddy, he is on "acreage" so even less likely to
>>>> get junk mail.
>>>> To see TV ads you need to watch free to air TV which I don't.
>>>
>>> We got more political junk mail than that from real estate agents
>>> wanting to sell our house, and that's saying something. Also got
>>> "Personal letters" (well personally addressed anyway) purporting to be
>>> from John Howard and Anastasia wanting us to vote for their party. Maybe
>>> that's because we are in a marginal electorate.
>>
>> What electorate is that keith?
>>
> Longman

At least you're marginal. The rest of the region is depressingly solid
blue. Fuck knows why. Maybe the population has been told that giant snakes
will eat their grandkids if they don't vote Tory.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus