ye gods...

Antiseptic:

<<< Actually, I think she's starting to sound a lot more reasonable of late. I could even get to like her, if only she didn't insist on reading Anne McCaffery. >>>

1. I must be doing something wrong.

2. I don't read Anne McCaffery - but so what?

R0bert

Unless whistler deigns to make an appearance, I don't see how much further we can go with this topic.

Severin:"I don't read Anne McCaffery "

See? I said you were sounding more reasonable.

"OK ITS A WHISTLER FLAME..i get it now

its..NOT A QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT WORKS..or would work

BUT ABOUT HOW A white?-MAN CANT SPEAK FOR WOE-MAN"

None of the above, some curiosity and a bit of put up or shut up. Whistler continues to post claims about the need for a womans legislature into various threads but so far has not explained how it works in any detail.

You have put a few brush strokes down about the structure but that's thin enough that I still don't get how it actually improves anything.

Take the issue of childrens living arrangements following separation, who would be deciding what the laws are that cover it?

If representatives are locally funded does that mean that people from poor communities would be disadvantaged even further because to lack of funding to pay for their representative compared to those from wealthier area's?

Would it mean that women who's average income is generally lower (for a variety of reason's which I don't want to start a fight about here) could afford less representation than men in similar area's could afford?

R0bert

<<Take the issue of childrens living arrangements following separation,who would be deciding what the laws are that cover it?>>this is a court issue..[case by case]..courts decide...its not a legislative issue

<<If representatives are locally funded does that mean that people from poor communities would be disadvantaged even further because to lack of funding to pay for their representative compared to those from wealthier area's?>>the constitution allows that only gold/silver coin shall be legal tender/the bible says ursury is sinfull..thus see the queen has her face on coin[this is by right of siegnorage

but see that seignorage is a sovereign right[yet sovreignity lies with the people[thus each of the first peoples states..have the right to issue its own intrest free coin]...local men/womens circles issue their own ursury free money[via the mint]

money[coin]..is collected by the banks on behalf of the state...from income and tarrifs/death duties[just like it has allways been..till the lawyers managed to thrust the burdon onto..'wage..'earners[see wage ISNT income]its wages...and the constitution dosnt allow wage tax

further see that..money was in silver/gold/copper..the values of any note is 7 cents cost[yet the cost of copper for a one cent coin=6 cents[a 6 pence containes 8 dollars of silver[coins mearly return to real values/pennies/shillings pounds..ie[pre bankers stealing the silver and gold]for a guide it is likely one coin/5cent=five dollar[fiat]

to acces the coin-age..is by circle[mens or womens..who create the coin/intrst free/a straight out loan[or payent in full/say you want to by my house..we go to a mens womans circle and they arrange the loan/intrest free in coin[=the only legal tender

see that bankers can keep their paper/fiat/ursury..but the people..born in these lands..have an inherant birth right..to its wealth/plus the rights of seignorage

<<Would it mean that women..who's average income is generally lower>>no

Dear RObert,

I came across this website and thought it
may be of some interest:

http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/55/1/5

" The Representation of Women in Australia: Meaning
and Make Believe," by Marian Sawyer.