Should Australia be a Republic?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

8th June 2006, 12:02 AM
Shedhand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

Why? The GG isn't despised by half the population.
I think the Queen is ok, but the rest of the Royals are complete frick wits. I shudder when I think of Chuck as our Head of State.

Chuck?? Mate do you mean Plugger? (think about it) :D :D
8th June 2006, 12:10 AM
echnidna

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shedhand

Not to be argumentative Groggy, loyalty is an intensely personal thing. If I spilled my guys about some of my former colleagues and in doing so I caused damage to the party at large I couldn't live with myself.
It's a tribal thing. I guess submariners, underground miners, cops and robbers are about the only other tribes which engender strong loyalties through the embrace of an ideology or common interest.
Cheers

Gunna giveya a greeny fer that but I haven't spread enough around
(whatever that means)
8th June 2006, 12:27 AM
Waldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by graemet

and removes the need for us to worry about another tier of government. Graeme
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

G'day,

Why does having a President, mean a need for another tier of governemnt? Why with Australia becoming a republic mean it needs to be another system of government so different from that that we have now?

:confused:
8th June 2006, 08:59 AM
Harry72

Hyjack...

How do I sharpen my 4 1/2 stanley blade its blunt!
8th June 2006, 10:25 AM
Wongo

Mario118, hows your legal studies project going?:D
8th June 2006, 10:28 AM
Waldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry72

Hyjack...

How do I sharpen my 4 1/2 stanley blade its blunt!

G'day Harry72,

With my Veritas MkII Honing Guide that I just got yesterday. Come over sometime and you can borrow it. :D
8th June 2006, 10:44 AM
Groggy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shedhand

Not to be argumentative Groggy, loyalty is an intensely personal thing. If I spilled my guys about some of my former colleagues and in doing so I caused damage to the party at large I couldn't live with myself.
It's a tribal thing. I guess submariners, underground miners, cops and robbers are about the only other tribes which engender strong loyalties through the embrace of an ideology or common interest.
Cheers

Well I understand loyalty very well, I also understand the priority of loyalty. Family, country, etc all engender loyalty, but if (as you appear to be saying) you value your party above your country then I'd be more than a little uncomfortable with our political process.

If there is a conflict between the good of the Party and the good of the country, it should be a no-brainer decision - how could it be otherwise?

I'm guessing you would put country over Party, but would suffer emotionally because of it. (You just haven't said so.)
8th June 2006, 11:56 AM
Studley 2436

Electing a President with non exective powers poses no problem to me. I suspect if you say anyone can't be elected the it will be over thrown in the High Court. They will say that each citizen is equal and toss it out.

Likewise notice the trouble when the GG (Kerr) wasn't a politician! Whoever is chosen or elected you will get a politician of some description. I for one would much rather elect a President. One chosen out of Parliament wouldn't suit me one bit especially not this idea of a joint sitting.

Studley
8th June 2006, 12:07 PM
Waldo

G'day Studley 2436,

Had a look at your site. The shots, 'Silhouetted Couple' and 'Beach seen from the Bluff' are very nicely composed. And the simplicity of a black & white shot with good composition always works. I looked through the other galleries, but these two stood out for me.
8th June 2006, 01:14 PM
Studley 2436

Many Thanks Waldo
Have to update the site actually with some more recent stuff and do some other things as well. I'll keep you posted

Studley
8th June 2006, 05:23 PM
Sturdee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Studley 2436

Electing a President with non exective powers poses no problem to me. I suspect if you say anyone can't be elected the it will be over thrown in the High Court. They will say that each citizen is equal and toss it out.
Studley

The High Court interprets the constitution in case of a dispute being refered to it, it doesn't make the constitution. If disqualifications to an office is included in the constitution the High Court will willingly accept it.

Also nowhere in our constitution is the notion that each citizen is equal, in fact there are a number of instances where it is clear that they are/were not.

Specifically for decades aboriginals or Torres straight islanders were not considered citizens and were excluded on the basis of race. It took a referendum to change that inequality, one of the few referendums that got carried. Also there are disqualifications on being eligible as a voter or member of parliament.

Peter.
8th June 2006, 08:56 PM
Studley 2436

Yeah allright Sturdee got me there on the fine print slap me in the face with an old stinky fish.

Studley
8th June 2006, 09:20 PM
Shedhand

Quote:

Originally Posted by echnidna

Gunna giveya a greeny fer that but I haven't spread enough around
(whatever that means)

Thanks cobber. It's the thought that counts.
I never have trouble giving greenies. Maybe I'm not giving out enough!! :confused:
Cheers
8th June 2006, 09:33 PM
Shedhand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groggy

Well I understand loyalty very well, I also understand the priority of loyalty. Family, country, etc all engender loyalty, but if (as you appear to be saying) you value your party above your country then I'd be more than a little uncomfortable with our political process.

If there is a conflict between the good of the Party and the good of the country, it should be a no-brainer decision - how could it be otherwise?

I'm guessing you would put country over Party, but would suffer emotionally because of it. (You just haven't said so.)

G'day Groggy
You're right mate. I would put country before party (and family for that matter) if the crunch came.

Whether I write a book or spill my guts to some gutter dwelling media grub about my former colleagues, what I might impart would have no bearing on ordinary punters (don't you just hate it when pollies refer to us as "ordinary voters" - I'm gonna ask one day, "What about extraordinary voters?").
All I would do is put at risk the reputation of a great and historically significant organisation which will be around long after the rorters, drunks and womanisers are forgotten.
Cheers
8th June 2006, 09:39 PM
echnidna

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shedhand

long after the rorters, drunks and womanisers are forgotten.
Cheers

Dunno about that, its been going on like that ever since the very first parliament in UK. One lot of grubs gets replaced by another lot.
But better that than a totalitarian society

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page