The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Clive Palmer and the United Australia Party: third option or Liberal spoiler? > Comments

Clive Palmer and the United Australia Party: third option or Liberal spoiler? : Comments

By James English, published 6/5/2013

Palmer’s small target, big brand politics is set to take Coalition votes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
If Clive wants to make this country more indpendant of the financial Jackals and make us a sovereign state,then he has my vote.

This UN Agenda 21 is another really big issue that wants to make us slaves to a communist one world Govt called the "New World Order" is another demon we must defeat.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 10:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one has suggested that Clive Palmer is dishonest. He has started picking people he knows are also honest for his team. After nearly twenty years of dealing with intrinsically dishonest people, drawn exclusively from the Lawyers of Australia, who have been squeezed like toothpaste from the lawyer tube onto a bench, called Judges and Magistrates it is about time someone who is honest took control.

We do not need one new law in Australia that is not already on the books. What we do need is an honest administration of those laws, by honest people whose job is purely administrative, and not judicial. The creation of a Judiciary by the earliest Politicians, is essentially dishonest, because these people are not authorised by the Australian Constitution, have been subsumed to the service of dishonest Governments, who have and are levying dishonest taxes, to pay themselves unearned large salaries.

To restore honesty and integrity to all Government, all laws must be measured against the yardstick of our Articles of Association. This is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and Constitution. 137 clauses of written English, and it appears our lawyers cannot understand them. It was provided in the Australian Courts Act 1828 that all laws to be enforceable, had to pass an examination by a “court” before they became binding. The Australia Act 1986 did not repeal that Act, but that has not stopped dishonest State Governments creating dishonest one person Courts, and extorting on pain of imprisonment large sums of money from lots and lots of people. It is not democracy when Judges rule the land. So far the calibre of people Clive Palmer has chosen for candidates understand Articles of Association, and corporate governance under a rule of law. Lawyers should not be allowed to make inconsistent Rules of Court, and banned as they were in the United Kingdom until 1872, from being representatives in the House of Representatives. They have a conflict of interest that allows lobbyists to achieve dishonest results.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 7:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lawyers & the legal / judicial profession generally are unquestionably the biggest obstacle to democracy, accountability & justice. I understand that lawyers were originally banned from political office in Australia. Can anyone advise me as to the circumstances surrounding removal of this ban ?? Its hardly surprising politicians are for the most part bloodsucking parasites when they descended from leeches. One can only hope that Big Clive avoids getting many of these bottom-feeders into the UAP. Certainly most of the current UAP converts 'appear' at least halfway honorable although I sincerely hope the suggestion that Slippery Pete was welcome to join was a joke.
Posted by praxidice, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 9:33:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive Palmer seems to have good intentions and some good ideas but he comes across as a bit flaky and is a poor communicator. At present I think media interest is all to do with his money. He needs to get past that. The brief UAP 'membership' (or whatever it was) of Peter Slipper over the weekend sends all the wrong messages. It will be interesting to see how the UAP shapes up at the federal election approaches. The outcome seems certain so some fun and fireworks along the way will enliven the tedious process. At the end, I think the electorate will be so busy walloping the Gillard government that the Katterites and Palmistas will be left behind.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 13 May 2013 7:22:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Slippery Pete affair was certainly interesting. As far as I can tell, ANYONE can complete the UAP / PUP party membership application on the party website (which was presumably what the slippery one did), however it then needs to be formally approved by a committee (probably the existing members). There are no advertized phone numbers of other contacts for the UAP / PUP, consequently I suspect the media publicity was staged with the intent of embarrassing Big Clive. There is no doubt that the UAP / PUP committee refused to accept the membership application. I note the comparisons between the UAP / PUP and the KAP. The latter has had quite some time to get established but has gone nowhere fast. Personally I believe the KAP lost a lot of support when some politically correct clown decided the party should seek votes from the gay rights rabble. Remember that bushies (as the core KAP supporters) are typically quite conservative folk who don't want any part of the AC-DC set. Bad move. To his credit, Big Clive has managed to keep clear of that crap, mind you I'm certain the termites are circling the UAP / PUP camp searching for any opportunity to white-ant his policies. We've already seen preliminary attacks by the LNP / ALP and those are likely to intensify between now and September. The RAbbott is no doubt scheming dastardly deeds a la the 'One Nation' business that earned him my everlasting contempt. Karma is a scary thing however, heres hoping it takes an interest in the Mad Monk.
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 13 May 2013 8:07:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Clive Palmer remembers that 65% of all Australians in the last census are still Christian, and still treasure honor and decency, and does his research on why Mark Latham lost in 2004, after being in a winning position seven weeks out from the election, and reads Kevin Rudd's article on this forum in 2004, he will realise that he can win by winning over the Christian vote. The margin for Latham seven weeks out from the 2004 election was the same margin that delivered Kevin Rudd a winner in 2007. Latham lost it by declaring himself an Atheist. That's why Gillard has no chance.

Abbott is a Roman Catholic Christian, but he has been shy about standing up for Christian values. Christian values came as the English Constitution in 1295 as the Magna Carta which removed the right to Judge, from the Priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and vested it in 12 members of the Congregation as advised by Jesus Christ. This angered the Pope and in 1216 the Pope annulled the Magna Carta. In 1295 the English passed as law the Magna Carta we have today. The Pope declared war on England. The Irish and a lot of Scots supported the Pope. Almost 400 years of civil wars resulted, with the English and their Welsh Archers winning them all.

For 200 years Roman Catholics were banned from Parliament until 1829, and the English had a maxim of law that the Pope never sleeps. After the British Empire became so large not enough Protestant administrators were available, Roman Catholic subjects were given equal rights in 1828. The fundamental difference between a Roman Catholic Christian and a Protestant Christian is that a Protestant is encouraged to read the New Testament for himself, whereas a Roman Catholic is expected to rely upon a Priest. When Priests were the best educated members of the community, and most others illiterate, this was the way, but today with almost universal literacy, everyone can read his own Bible. It says, Judge not that you be not judged. All Judges and Magistrates ignore that command.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Monday, 13 May 2013 8:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy