My country has become evil. The murder of babies. Two states are even now trying to pass laws to allow MURDER of babies until they are 28 days old! The harm to children in the schools. Far too many churches that are not following God’s word. Disney is even gone over to the evil side. Americans are in for some real wrath of God.
Can you actually believe this is Australia?
- Thread starter Dostoyevsky
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
My country has become evil. The murder of babies. Two states are even now trying to pass laws to allow MURDER of babies until they are 28 days old! The harm to children in the schools. Far too many churches that are not following God’s word. Disney is even gone over to the evil side. Americans are in for some real wrath of God.
Abortion to do away with unwanted pregnancy is far more wicked, except it be in situations like **** or with the safety of the mother.. It’s always a highly charged emotionally subject either way. As to the ways of Disney it did seduce us all very much. Georgia thankfully the love and forgiveness of God is deeper than the deepest sea.❤
Last edited:
In my opinion, not really.
The system is rigged so any alternative perspective does not have enough power to accomplish anything.
You can have (say) one third of the entire country have an opinion on government policy (e.g. no war!), and the stock-standard "democratic" voting system is to "divide and conquer" by mandating districts and forcing a limited number of bad choices (candidates) on people in each district. The minority view can win few, if any seats, and therefore have NO real political power.
Also, important issues (like no war) are muddled with BS issues. Distraction akin to "bread and circuses", but using negative issues which makes people emotional and forget the more important issues.
My solution: a person who wants a seat in parliament gets the "vote" of the number of electors equal to the total number of electors divided by the number of parliamentarians.
Example: 15.1 million Australian electors divided by 151 Australian House of Rep seats = 100,000 electors.
If someone can get 100,000 people to "vote" for them from across the country, they get a set in parliament. (The actual amount is about 111,000, but you get the point.)
This method would probably destroy the party system. That is why the politicians would fight it tooth-and-nail.
Last edited:
My opinion: minor parties are too disjointed and disorganised.
Been there, attempted that.
Andrew in this late hour much is rigged. It’s a interesting idea you have . In Queensland voting was once more inline with the geographics of the state and not by the power of population and for good reason because most of Australia’s population lives in 4 major cities . In Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide you have over 14 million people just there alone . We be a population of 25 million people. Of course the geographic zoning system for voting has changed forever in Queensland in the recent decades. I’m sure elsewhere too. How to divide a 100,000 voters per the 151 representatives fairly over the vastness of Australia may be problematic how would you do ? As a forethought let’s take for example Townsville 183,000 people, Charters Towers 12000 people Mt Isa 19000 people and the capital city of Queensland Brisbane at 2.4 million people how could the entire country be represented fairly
Last edited:
Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough.
Under the present system, the politicians pretend that they represent the majority of the people and therefore pretend they have a mandate . . . sometimes to do ANYTHING (as demonstrated during the recent scamdemic).
My method ensures that a member of parliament truly represents the interests of 110,000 people . . . rather than the present system where there is a pretense that showing up to "vote" implies agreement with that person representing us. In 30 years of voting as an Australian citizen, I have NEVER encountered a politician who I felt represented my interests. I have not yet surveyed others, but I would bet my perspective is not uncommon.
It is likely they will not able to fill all 151 seats in the House of Reps with my system . . . but that is a good thing. It proves that the politicians do not represent all the people and therefore do not have as much of a mandate as they pretend to have.
I count at least 14- 16 representatives for Brisbane’s 2.4 million population alone. Maybe North Queensland with a population combined with the people of Townsville, Charters Towers, Cairns and Mt Isa. And if we throw in 50.000 kangaroos they might just scrap in 3 representatives. You know how large North Queensland is geographically you maybe get 4 So how would government revenue be divided properly considering that our present system does not work so well in dividing that. And yours may be even leaner as it seems that you have less than a 151 seats on your mind . Big fish generally eat little fish out of the equation. If it be 110.000 people per representative the whole of Australia would have to be rezoned. Than there would be population movements and also population increases to evaluate . As to being answerable to the people. Where have I heard that before. I always thought that’s how it was supposed to be. Sadly that is found somewhere in utopia these days. As to politicians I’ve met a few they do charm very much with their pearly lips of wisdom and like to enchant very much over a cup of tea.
Last edited:
Two points:
Why are you focusing on "government revenue"? The scope of government, and therefore its revenue, should be miniscule. Much, much smaller than it is now, therefore much less of an issue.
You are missing the point. There are no "districts" or "zones"; therefore no gerrymandering and separation of people with similar interests to minimise their power. A person need only seek ~110,000 people from across the entire country whom they represent.
It would also be better if political parties were made illegal. Have the members (of Parliament) really answerable to the voters, instead of having to "Toe the Party Line".
Last edited:
In my opinion, more laws is exactly what we do NOT need. We need fewer laws; far fewer.
Freedom of association is a basic right.
The problem is when some people use, can use or attempt to use government to forward their own agendas.
They only do that if government has powers . . . which is exactly why its powers should be be miniscule.
It is farcical to call a member of the Australian House of Representatives the "Member for _____(place electoral division here)_____".
They are really the "Member for the Liberal Party" or "Member for the Labor Party" or any other politicial party.
It is one of those lies politicians promulgate and everyone accepts.
Along with the fact that they are the "Honorable" _____(place MP's name here)_____.
Under "the Westminster system" of government, parliamentary members are only allowed to vote other than the party line in the event of "conscious vote". That happens rarely. That logically implies that Australian members of parliament are forbidden to follow their conscious. That does not make for very good lawmaking.
. Ok for more accuracy we have a 151 divisions at present which make up the entire geographical being of our country with our 151 representatives in what is commonly known as the house of the people. There used to many more I count another 72 divisions that have been abolished over time. Does it really have to be a 110.000 people that decides ye or nay for each of those 151 representatives. And you must remember with whatever is agreed upon by those 151 representatives must be accepted by the Queens representative the Governor General. Nether the less it is still the Australian people who decide. As to gerrymandering it has been a popular and accepted practice be that for good or bad. In Queensland it was introduced in the late 1940’s by ALP’s Ned Hanlon and used with deadly precision under the Bjelke Peterson government of the 70’s and 80’s. The beginnings of gerrymandering began in America where they are still popular today. As to the scope of the government and its revenue being miniscule or minuscule in such a matter. Yes you correct that much small. My apologies I was thinking more along the lines of commonwealth distribution amongst the states. Something entirely different.
The Australian people never decide anything.
Even the 1999 referendum was manipulated through biased wording.
(I agreed with the outcome. But not the fact that the outcome was accomplished through manipulation.)
As regards commonwealth distribution to the states: In my opinion, one of the flaws of the present commonwealth - states relationship (in accordance with the Australian constiution) is that the commonwealth has most of the taxing power, and therefore can easily violate the supposed constitutional independence and sovereignty of the states. That imbalance needs to be corrected.
It is not unlike the US federal govt buying off US states through financial rewards and penalties.
I’m only familiar with the 2017 referendum. Where many stashes of Mail in votes were discovered in unusual locations. The 1999 referendum what was that all about
Dugout that sound very much like a party line croak from 20 drunks at the pub : )
That was not a referendum. That was postal survey.
It was more than just a survey it was all things including a referendum survey and a postal vote on how the Australian people felt about same *** marriage. The only difference being that it was not compulsory to vote. But seems a majority of Australians did with over 12 million voting. 7,817,247 votes yes . 4,873,387 votes no. It was after that of,the same year 2017 that the Australian government legalised same *** marriage.
Last edited:
That was not a referendum. That was a postal survey.
https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1800.0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey
The survey was not legally binding.
Opinion: The survey was a PR exercise.
[I did not participate in the survey, not because I do not think people should have the right to form familial bonds with whomever they wish, but because it is none of the govt's damned business. It should neither be "legal" nor "illegal" for two (or more people) of any gender to get married. "Same *** marriage" should not have been "legalised"; it should have been "delegalised" (which is not the same as being made "illegal"). There should be NO laws addressing familial relationships whatsoever.]
The govt should not even be recording marriages. Doing so implies the authority to decide what is a marriage and what is not.
The fact that marriage and divorce have so much impact on people's lives in a legal sense is entirely due to legal constructs created by the govt. A typical example of govt causing problems then pretending to solve the problems it created by taking on more authority, which then causes more problems, etc. etc. etc.
You did not participate in the survey. Ok. You believe that people can decide and have the right to have familial bonds with whomever they wish. Familial meaning a spouse and a whole list of blood relatives including the adopted. Andrew I’m.not exactly sure what you mean in the context of familial there be a number of different meanings and expressions. You continue to write that it should neither be legal nor illegal for TWO ( or MORE people ) of any gender to get married. Than we now not only have a diversity of gender couples but also a plurality, and polygamy more than two people .. I do note that you have been quoting George Orwell’s 1984 book on one of your posts..Perhaps the sweet libertine Julia from the novel 1984 has beguiled your mind with her sweet enticing words and beckoning feminine beauty . You not be the first nor the last : ) . But yes all those all those different sexual orientations and different marriage customs you mention have come down to us in one form or another from ancient times. But were they all correct and beneficial to the well being of humanity. And what of our Christian Judaic era of which has given us so much stability and progress, and so much guidance on marriage . Are we to lay aside that Christian heritage and accept the whim of the mob who seeks only to do as they please. This not only be the elites motto but yes the mobs also. Their earthly motto be ( Might is right ) and also ( do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ). That be the cry of fallen humanity. The government has every right to record every legal marriage from what I can see even the ones unacceptable to God
Last edited:
Under the Westminster system, a member is allowed to vote against the party line. Members have often "Crossed the floor" and voted against the party line.
Bollocks.
I can not provide you a definitive reference on the subject, but suggest you look at reality.
Though I do not consider Wikipedia a legitimate "source of truth", I can not find any other reference online which summarises the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote
This is also helpful:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0809/09rp20"The term free vote or conscience vote is defined as the rare vote in parliament, in which members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote according to their own moral, political, religious or social beliefs."
Update:
Lest anyone think that prejudicial treatment has ceased in Australia toward those of us who refused to get jabbed to "flatten the curve" of the covid scamdemic, here is a couple of up-to-date facts:
- The NSW Rural Fire Service still does not permit volunteers to participate, and
- I am encountering prejudice in "redeployment" behaviour of my employer and hiring practices of potential employers.
Lest anyone think that prejudicial treatment has ceased in Australia toward those of us who refused to get jabbed to "flatten the curve" of the covid scamdemic, here is a couple of up-to-date facts:
- The NSW Rural Fire Service still does not permit volunteers to participate, and
- I am encountering prejudice in "redeployment" behaviour of my employer and hiring practices of potential employers.
I just returned to Australia after 12 months in Europe. I came back for family reasons but can’t wait to leave again. It is unbelievable how many people are totally brainwashed! They refuse to believe the facts I saw, as opposed to the government narrative! When I try to tell them they have been lied to they trot out what they saw on tv and wont believe it was not true!
True for many, but it depends upon the area.
For instance, southwest and western Sydney are known for their "non-compliance" to NSW govt "health orders".
Interestingly, those areas have much higher populations of immigrants, and therefore are less likely to look upon any govt as their "saviour".
Example: There was an incident where the NSW Police intimidated a function centre near the city to cancel an anti-covid lockdown "Freedom Ball", despite the fact that the function centre had other functions within days of the "Function Ball". So, the organisers moved the event further west; the function centre owner was intimidated by the NSW Gestapo (whoops, Police), and told them to piss off; the event went ahead. (I am not certain of his ethnic background, but it certainly was not anglo-saxon.)
The NSW thugs (I mean Police) also concentrated their covid lockdown forces in western Sydney because of the higher non-compliance there.
In Tassie, there are probably fewer immigrants, so probably a lot higher rate of blind obedience to govt, regardless of whether or not its mandates are reasonable.
(PS: I respected the NSW Police Force. After their behaviour related to covid lockdowns, I no longer do, and consider them the aggressors until proven otherwise. Their behaviour when Nigel Farange was scheduled to speak in Sydney was unconscionable. They engaged in intimidation, threats and blackmail in order to extract a payment of thousands of dollars from the venue.)
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,559
A missing "o" totally changes the meaning of that sentence! LMAO!
If you visit a few European countries on your way back, most people (or sheep) here will also tell you that what you say is not true and that the government is 100% telling the truth.
The government here confirms that there is an excess mortality, but in the first sentence it says that it is guaranteed that it has nothing to do with vaccination, but they still do not know why that is so.
Government also says that there is a decline in births due to mass vaccination, but that one is not yet sure why, but pregnant women should be vaccinated necessarily.
Government here said two years ago that children of Corona are not at risk, but now children should be vaccinated. All those who die at a young age or no longer awake are trgische deaths but normal ...
What always remains the same, all sheep still believe that and sheep who are damaged after the 3 or 4 vaccination say it is not from the vaccination but coincidence, they had no choice but to be in solidarity....
