I'd like to see a business case put for it.

I notice everyone is staying away from the costs and where the money will be coming from, ie., what services will have to be cut to pay.

The 'Progressives': no 'Struggle Streets' or pesky age pensioners to be concerned about, that is for sure.

Is Mise and OTB,

I don't think we are going to get what we want. The last time I asked for good reasons to change to a republic, the only response was abuse. The whole republic thing is just another attempt at breaking up our society even more than it has been trashed by the Left already. SSM didn't go where they wanted, so they are back to 'the republic', so limited are their ideas and intelligence.

ttbn,

"I don't think we are going to get what we want. The last time I asked for good reasons to change to a republic, the only response was abuse..."

You see, what I find entertaining about your good self - is the hypocrisy.

In the very next sentence after complaining about "receiving abuse", you write:

"... The whole republic thing is just another attempt at breaking up our society even more than it has been trashed by the Left already..."

And follow it up with:

".... SSM didn't go where they wanted, so they are back to 'the republic', so limited are their ideas and intelligence."

You're so busy dishing out your own brand of generalised abuse - that you can't even see yourself doing it.

Now why would people continue to bother with your mini-posts of scarcely concealed vitriol, and at the same time listen to you whining about receiving abuse. The heated exchanges some us have with you are usually in direct response to your own belligerent posts.

Pfft...

Poirot,
Come on give us worth while reasons to become a Republic, rather than negative opposition. We want to know the advantages!

A hypocrite, eh? I can wear name-calling, but hypocrite! Let me tell you matey, l have no self-delusions - unlike some- and I freely admit that I can be a very nasty pasty when aroused; you are seeing the nice side of me. As I told one of the drones, 'ttbn' stands for try-to-be-nice, which believe me, is what I have been, even with an irritating character like you. You will do anything, including denigration of 'opponents' to avoid answering questions. You are all idealogy and no substance. When someone politely asks why you think something or other, you get stroppy. Posting opinions without being able to support them is really weird. If you can't defend your point of view, why post your opinion in the first place? I say that it is an opinion probably not worth having if it's not worth explaining. On the other hand, why bother to respond if don't wish to? There definitely 3 posters here that I will not respond to because Ithink that they are idiots. But you - you are so keen to put me 'back in my place' that you fire away even when I haven't said boo to you. Your current post
is just to call me a name, and ask why anyone would take notice of me. I don't know; why do you keep taking notice of me? Why have you bothered posting something that's all about me, and not the topic?

ttbn,

I usually respond in kind.

It's been obvious from the moment you landed here that you are prepared to fling around obnoxious posts as a matter of course.

Which is all fine with me...but don't go whining that you receive back as good as you give.

"...When someone politely asks why you think something or other, you get stroppy...."

I responded to a post of yours to me that included this:

"....seems to me to demonstrate a petulance born of malcontentedness and a desire to vent frustrations that have more to do with Left-wing, anarchy..."

That was before you told me to: "...Go "back up the coast" and do what ever bogan things you do up there." (which you then apologised for)

Remember your snide little prod when I wasn't around to reply?

Another gem in your most recent post:

"...As I told one of the drones, 'ttbn' stands for try-to-be-nice, which believe me, is what I have been, even with an irritating character like you...."

Here's what I wrote summing up my opinion on the republic:

"I have put my views across and given an example of one model. It's my opinion that Australia, as a self-governing nation with the Queen presiding as a mere formality, should consider the option of parliament appointing the GG in his ceremonial role as head of state."

That's my opinion. I'm not here to convince the likes of you.

The tone of my responses to you are couched in direct proportion to the tone of your posts to me.

And the reason you lost your bottle in your last post - in a "see here, " I can be a very nasty pasty when aroused" kind of way..is that you don't like it when someone stands up to you.

In the brief time you've been on OLO, you've made your mark as a not particularly polite poster - especially not to anyone with whom you hold opposing views. You go in boots and all, at the first opportunity.

Fair enough...but don't moan when it's returned in equal measure.