If Australia – with its exaggerated, anti-Western multiculturalism, stupidly-high immigration; importation of African crime gangs; anti-free speech human 'rights' commission; compulsory voting; the highest electricity prices in the world (add your own gripes) – has not been a global laughing stock for ages, it should be now.

It seems that the country's Constitution is not required reading for the clearly inadequate drones who think they should be running the circus that Australia has become. Section 44 of the Constitution is one of the most straightforward sections in the document: you cannot be a dual citizen and serve in Australia's parliaments. Duh!

But, thanks to the interest of a single unknown Australian whose name is already forgotten, three dimwits of no particular use to Australian society have been revealed as being wrongly in politics under the Constitution – and who knows how many others, past and present, have been and will prove to to be frauds?

Two sanctimonious Greens showed up first, with stupid excuses, but they at least dropped straight out to the sneering of chief clown, Turnbull. The chief clown, however, has had no such criticism for the last bozo who has been illegally in his own cabinet – the one with the most unbelievable story of them all!

I've said it before – Australia is stuffed – but this year has revealed just how stuffed. It s bloody embarrassing to say the least.

Dear ttbn,

Let me get this straight...

Multiculturalism - bad?
Immigration - bad?
Human Rights Commission - bad?
Compulsory voting - bad?
Turnbull - bad?
Electricity precies - bad?
Section 44 Constitution - good?
Australian politicians - bad?
Australia - laughing stock - bad?
Australia - stuffed?

And then there was something about Africans and
crime - as well.

Realistically though, I don't think that you need to worry too
much about Australia being a laughing stock globally.

At present with their current President, most people will agree
that the United States is dominating centre-stage on that
score. We'll have to wait our turn. But there's hope for us
yet. Of course we could really be in with a chance to be a
laughing-stock globally, if we bring back our former Prime
Minister - Mr Abbott. He'd give Donald Trump a run for his money.

Dear Foxy,

I also get thoroughly sick of these constantly whinging miserable old coots who ignore the fact that we have a stable political system, a public health system that is the envy of places like the US and an economy that from the Hawke/Keating era has hardly missed a beat.

We enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world with relatively low crime figures and a public safety net for those less fortunate.

Yet we always hear of how stuffed we are. I rarely buy a Tattslotto ticket. Why? Because I believe if you lucky enough to find yourself a citizen of this country you have already won.

There are those among us who would like to see our safety net dismantled, our public heath system forced to go user pays, our gun laws rolled back and our taxes that fund public spending rolled back. They are the ones who pose the greatest threat to this country and they are the ones who come on to places like this to white-ant what we have build for ourselves in this country.

Enough already.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You. I share your optimism and feelings
about this wonderful country of ours. Having
lived and worked in other countries, including the US
I am so happy to call this my home. I agree with you
that many don't realise just how fortunate we really are.

SteeleRedux,

I appreciate the same things about Australia that you do. The difference is the lack of maturity and experience which is behind your inability to understand the current threats to the things we both believe in.

Australia has been what it is because of shared values and beliefs. Those values and beliefs are now shared by fewer people, thanks to indiscriminate immigration and the cultural Marxism of the past 50 or so years, which has put people like you in the same category as immigrants who are actively hostile to our society. You like the good bits, but you don't know and don't care how things got to the way they are, instead of the way they are in non-Western countries.

Do you really think that we will continue to enjoy “some of the highest living standards in the world with relatively low crime figures and a public safety net for those less fortunate” if immigration of 200,000 plus continues? I don't know what your personal reading covers, but it appears not to go near the fact that we are slipping down the lists of those things you value all the time. The effect on GPD looks good, but wealth per capita is slipping. Not many wage rises for anyone but politicians and the elites – but perhaps you are too well off to notice that?

Perhaps it's because I'm just a “silly old coot”, but you will have to point out all these people who “ who pose the greatest threat to this country” by dismantling safety nets,” our public heath system forced to go user pays, our gun laws rolled back and our taxes that fund public spending rolled back.”

I mean, a conservative government severely restricted gun ownership; the Left is in full control with Turnbull, who is outspending Labor on welfare, health and education. Please explain. Just which people are more dangerous than African gangs, Muslims and unemployable immigrants determined to colonise us?

And, finally, what is it that you have built “in this country?” Australia didn't begin with your birth.

Dear ttbn,

I think that we can agree that we want a future
for this country of sustainable self-sufficiency,
a healthy environment supporting a robust
democracy - free of poverty and inequity.

None of us want to see a future where the stability
of day-to-day life has been eroded by a degraded
environment, depleted resources, lawlessness or
warfare or limited access to health-care and
education. We don't want to see economic or political
inequity as well as the fragmentation of social
cohesion.

Our future depends on decisions we make.

I am optimistic -

We're told that our population will need to increase
due to the obvious fact that the proportion of the
population over 65 is projected to increase by 60 per
cent or more, in the Southern States. This makes our
rate of productivity be dependent on increasing
the labour force - hence immigration.

Resources and industries will undoubtedly take
new roads. Fossil fuels and minerals are forecast
to be exhausted in 60 - 80 years.

We probably won't have all the answers regarding our
country's future for decades. However,
we need to have an open mind on the opportunities we're
faced with and discuss all the alternatives.
It is not enough to make-up our minds. We need to look
at information from official and reputable sources
and analysis and discuss all the opportunities and
challenges that we are going to face and how to
maximise them to our advantage.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

BTW: Are you aware that the United Kingdom migration
alone is almost twice the total
humanitarian stream and ten times the number of
asylum seekers. This is followed
by New Zealand, India, the Phillipines, China,
and South Africa. According to ABS stats.

Dear ttbn,

I've just thought of something else that I'd like
to add as food for thought.

You complained about our politicians, especially
Malcolm Turnbull. I remember what Peter Costello
wrote in his Memoirs:

"It's events that make the man or woman just as
men or women make the events. For much of his life
Churchill was considered a failure, shamelessly
chasing wars around the globe, a struggling Home
Secretary, a propagator of failed military strategy
in the First World War, an undistinguished Chancellor;
but his moment came in 1940. If it had not, his career
could well have been marked as a failure."

The point that Costello was making was that a person's
influence can only be judged at the end of their career,
preferably judged years later.

Influential Australian leaders (or for that matter
influential Australians) are those who will stand the
test of time.

Richard Nixon used the quote of Sophocles, saying,

"One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the
day has been."

Foxy,

" Fossil fuels and minerals are forecast
to be exhausted in 60 - 80 years"

Hardly!!

"According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences the economically demonstrated reserves to production ratios for bituminous coal and lignite in Australia are 111 years and 539 years respectively, however these figures do not account for growth in production. Bituminous coal exports from Australia have been growing at a rate of 5% (on average during the last 20 years). If this rate of growth would-be maintained to extinction all current economically demonstrated black coal in the country would be depleted in under 40 years; however continued growth at that rate is unlikely to occur for such a long period, and this estimate does not reflect growth in the demonstrated resource. Explorations in the last decade has resulted in a significant increase in inferred coal resources which are now almost double the economically demonstrated resource"

Dear Is Mise,

Dr Beth Fulton - research scientist, Office of the
Chief Executive (OCE) and Head of Ecosystem Modelling
CSIRO stated:

"Australia's resource sector has been one of the defining
shapers of economic growth through the late 20th and early
21st century. Major fossil fuels (black coal, natural gas)
and minerals (iron ore, bauxite, copper) are forecast to
be exhausted in 60-80 years at current rates of extraction,
much sooner for other resources (gold, lead, zinc, crude oil)."

"The physical trade balance (incl. mining, manufacturing and
agricultural sectors) are forecast to show continued growth
in exports to the mid 21st century, but then to collapse
rapidly to around neutral."

I think the key words here are "forecast"
and "current rates of extraction".

When a poster whose prolific and wildly enthusiastic posts promoting 'Open Borders' , endless diversity and a 'Big Australia' starts quoting scientists there is always the real possibility of selectivity in the quotes that can alter the scientists' findings and what can reasonably be drawn for those findings. Especially where a link is not offered.

To be helpful, here is the link that a poster has forgotten,
http://theconversation.com/where-is-australia-headed-some-future-projections-12403

Questions spring to mind, with the first being, why was the scientist's reference to Australia's over-enthusiastic population growth not mentioned. The quotes somehow missed that. And what effect might such population growth have on Australia's resource sustainability, not to mention any preservation of Australian culture and way of life?

"The human aspects of Australia’s future have received a good deal of attention over the last few years. Australia’s population will increase by 50-100% by 2050"
[link above]

Population change
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0

Balance is needed, not the eye-patch worn by green leftists.

Sorry, make that the eye-patch of the 'lets have millions of diverse anyone, NOW!' multicults who are likely making a mint out of siphoning grants and entitlements from the bucket of taxpayers money.

As if anyone they or the green leftists are actually interested in the environment and sustainability anyhow. Not where they are putting their hatred of 'whites', UK, US and Europe first anyway.

The self loathing left are well named. It was always thus.

Dear ttbn,

Here is a link that may be of further interest
to you:

http://theconversation.com/what-will-australias-energy-future-look-like-16412

It's a fascinating subject.

I hope that Bazz reads this as well.

Foxy,

Your information on immigration is outdated – mythical stuff invented by greedy businessmen and lazy politicians. 70,000, not 200 to 300 thousand is the ideal intake for Australia; and, humanitarian intake is not part of the equation.

I don't know why you mention the life of fossil fuels in this context, but you have been mislead about that, too. Only days ago it was revealed that we have at least 300 years of coal and gas, if we have the common sense to use it.

Australia is in a bad place currently, and it will only get worse because the people who should be doing something about it are in thrall to ideologues and shonks.

I don't know why you feel optimistic, but I'm extremely glad that I will be gone when Australia really starts unravelling. We are now past the point of no return. 'End of days' is starting to have real meaning.

Dear ttbn,

Sounds to me like you need a hug!

ttbn,

Most people are wonderful, salt of the Earth are doing their best and getting on with their lives. They don't pay much attention to the serial pests and mainly because work and family, just living occupies them anyhow. However they can be expected to pull the politicians up from time to time, by emptying out the refuse that gathers in Canberra.

Try to start each day by listing three good things in your life. The good things might usually be those small things that make life so enjoyable but we forget to savour them. A walk among tall trees is good for the soul.

By all means enjoy slabs of time completely free of the media and electronic communication. You must program them. The new technology is beaut, but we are not so good at knowing how to best use and adapt to it yet.

A good done regularly is very good for the soul. I try and make that every single day. I don't tell anyone. It is between me and whoever I help. Have a go, you come across as someone who would be doing that anyway and all it needs to the attention, to be in the moment, and make it happen at least once a day.

By all means take heart, by far the greatest majority of the population have had enough of the carping whingers, scolders, clowns and nags that bloom like weeds. The ABC could do with some draining of the swamp. All manner of nasties in that bog and they are pests to everyone else, the real workers and contributors there too.

leoj,

You do surprise me at times.

I would almost believe that underneath your
usual persona there beats a caring heart.
I wish we'd see more of it on this forum.

Foxy,

However I don't accept that 'gift'(sic). Yours to keep.

Foxy and leoj,

I have to say that I find your 'therapeutic' responses to my sincerely held opinions – opinions held by some very well known and respected public figures – quite insulting. In future, I will just express my opinions and move on – if I bother. What passes for discussion on OLO is now, more than ever, juvenile point-scoring from people who think that they are re-delivering tablets for Moses every day, rather than just expressing their opinions.

ttbn,

No problems. Sorry if your were offended. It was not intended.

leoj,

I guess that you must be used to insults
so compliments leave you baffled.

ttbn,

I did not mean to offend you. I meant
well, and genuinely tried to cheer you up.
Quoting John Greenleaf Whittier -
(PG Wodehouse):

"Of all sad works of tongue or pen, the saddest
are these 'It might have been.'

So now we have to arrive at the airport 2hrs befor a domestic flight.
I place the blame squarely on do-gooder ignorant leftists and deranged progressives, labor, the greens, non profits acting in a political context and any other piece of crap Aussie who supported multiculuralism as a good thing but ignored the fact that importing muslims is importing terrorism.
And I blame Baby Boomers too, those people got all the benefits now they are old, trying to be good and liberal and ruining whats left of the place.
You havent passed the country down to the young ones in the same condition you found it.
A lot of this stuff happened on their watch.
Now we need immigrants just to look after the enomy during Baby Boomers last years when we don't even have jobs for young people.

You know you're right ttbn, this country really is too far gone.
And sure it may be one of the best countries in the world but everyone else wanted to ignore us when we said we're heading strait down the path other destroyed countries have travelled and that we continue to follow makes us 100 times more stupid to ruin the place AFTER we see whats happened to other countries.

And for those who think we whinge, we just actually cared about the place that you all wanted to ruin in you do-gooder ignorance.
Now its every man for himself, this country is barely worth fighting for anymore.
Its a losing battle.

AC,

Thanks for that. It's a bit annoying when you voice an opinion – any opinion – and it is decided that something is wrong with your mind. I'm in my mid-seventies, and I know how good Australia used to be, and I am still compos mentis enough to know what it is like now. We are steadily losing it.

I wonder how long it will be before Soviet-style 're-education' centres are operating. That will be the next brilliant idea for silly old coots.

I think that we have to bear in mind that, good as it is, OLO does not really reflect greater Australia; and I still have faith that the average Australian will do the right thing at the ballot box to rid us of the fools currently dragging the country down. It happened in the U.S, and there is no reason it can't happen here. The petulant, nasty screaming from the Left will be the same, but they have to tire themselves out eventually, just like all naughty, spoilt children.

Armchair Critic,
Your words are worth repeating

"You know you're right ttbn, this country really is too far gone.
And sure it may be one of the best countries in the world but everyone else wanted to ignore us when we said we're heading strait down the path other destroyed countries have travelled and that we continue to follow makes us 100 times more stupid to ruin the place AFTER we see whats happened to other countries.

And for those who think we whinge, we just actually cared about the place that you all wanted to ruin in you do-gooder ignorance.
Now its every man for himself, this country is barely worth fighting for anymore.
Its a losing battle".

ttbn and leoj. I also agree with what you say.

The rot started in the 70s with Whitlam, Grassby and continued on with Frasser and Howard. This was their high immigration policies and Multiculturalism where they only wanted diversity instead of insisting on benefits to Aus.

Howard could have stopped MC but simply stopped using the word and the policy remained. Same with Abbott, but at least Abbott did one good thing, he stopped the invasion of the illegals. Now we have a PM with Labor ideas and we saw what Rudd and Gillard did to the country.

Like you ttbn, I am glad I am old so I wont see the outcome of the folly of these fools that our grand children will inherit.

The present lot are too stupid to even see the current situation in Europe, which is staring them in the face.

My heart bleeds for our grand children

Here is another perspective on the subject of
our country:

http://thecoversation.com/is-australia-as-bad-as-is-skewed-criticism-may-leave-you-wondering-40825

cont'd ...

Another typo. My apologies here's the link again:

http://theconversation.com/is-australia-as-bad-as-is-skewed-criticism-may-leave-you-wondering-40825

Dear Critic,

«You know you're right ttbn, this country really is too far gone.»

"
And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.

And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.

Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
"

[Jonah 4:6-11]

Foxy please stop directing us to lefty/communist propaganda websites.

It spoils my day to realise there are people in Oz naïve enough to fall for that garbage.

Foxy & others,
The lifetime of our resources is not all that has to be
considered. We are already past world peak coal.
Many countries will be wanting to buy our reserves.
Quote Chinese Premier.
"We will burn all our own coal then burn all yours."

Shell Oil is preparing to wind down.
They can see that to explore and develop resources is too low ERoEI.

Too many do not take ERoEI into their consideration.

Dear Bazz,

I was hoping that you'd come into this
discussion and share your knowledge with us.
Thank You.

Dear Hassie,

It's an occupational habit to present various
perspectives in a discussion. It does not necessarily
mean that I agree with them all. I simply am trying to broaden
the discussion because I've been raised to look
at things from more than just one viewpoint.

You don't have to agree with what's being posted - or read
it for that matter if it offends you. But name-calling does
not do you any credit and lowers the bar. I expect more
from you.

Foxie to 'Hassie', 'Here, I've got a readymade (spin) off the rack for you'. 'And only used for the umpteenth time, so off you go'. Dusts hands (unnecessarily) and walks away.

Foxy,

I agree with Hasbeen; there is not much point in referring to sites and opinions that people you are addressing are never going to accept. You say, look at what this person says, but that person's opinions have already been rejected via the post of the person you are aiming at. Nobody who is a conservative is going to be swayed by what some leftie thinks, and vice versa. In my time on OLO, I have not been aware of one person who has changed his or her views on anything. The only people likely to be persuaded do not post their opinions here.

Dear ttbn,

Thank You for your civility. It is appreciated.
However my aim was not to change anyone's opinion.
I'm not in the habit of trying to convert anyone.
That is not my job. Never has been. However as an
educator - my position is to present other viewpoints
to consider and possibly broaden perspectives.
That is one of the things that I like about this Forum -
it presents us with so many different and varying
points of view. And Hassie has always been a gentleman
and I think he knows me well enough by now to know
where I'm coming from.

Just a couple of observations, useful or not.

First, if a lie or 'factoid' is not challenged it becomes the truth.

Second, the fight for freedom of speech, for freedom, is never over. Those with a memory of what was, before political correctness, are valuable in the debate.

I posted this story,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'

.. in a thread on another matter where even Dawkins, a world-class academic known for his fearless independence, scientific rigour and respectful politeness too, is being censored, not by the university that has a duty of care, but by zealots who now seem to count in their hundreds.

They succeeded by threatening social disturbance to censor Dawkins. Next, please?

But in reality the real zealots are probably just a dozen or so thugs acting for nameless others - who should be identified by the authorities and media but never are.

Speaking of Australia, there is reason to believe that the same tactics are being used here. The scheduled visit to NZ and Australia of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an academically bright, respectful and polite young woman with heaps of credibility, was cancelled by protesters threatening the same. The idiotic ABC that can't stop shoe throwers was no real help (to her).

http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/arabic/en/article/2017/03/20/muslim-women-protest-australian-visit-anti-islam-activist-ayaan-hirsi-ali

So roll over and allow it to happen, or dig the toes in and say B.S.? Your choice.

It amuses me greatly that those who rant and rave the loudest
for freedom of speech are the very ones who try to
silence views that don't agree with their viewpoints
using the usual techniques of mud-slinging, insults,
and nasty personal attacks.

There is a report on the news that mosques in Indonesia have been supporting IS.

Wonders will never cease!!

Dear Is Mise,

What is the main religion in Indonesia?
And do you know how many mosques there are
and how many of them support IS?

Foxy the ones making the most demonstrations are those with the most
money derived from Saudi Arabia. Even the Government is worried about them.
It would be interesting to know which mosques are Saudi financed here.
Saudi Arabia is having a hard financial time but there have been no
reports of them cutting back their money flow into other countries.

The Goldie Locks oil price has disappeared and the present price is
too high for the economy, 2 1/2 times higher than price pre 2003 but
too low for the producers. Saudi needs about US$100 but it won't get it.
We had a quick relief due to fracking, tight oil, but that has just
about run out of growth and we never took advantage of the pause.

However the point I am trying to make is that hopefully they will run
out of money before we do.

Dear Bazz,

Indonesia has the world's biggest Muslim population.
There are over 800,000 mosques in Indonesia.
An article by the ABC tells us that something like
41 mosques across 16 provinces are implicated
in supporting ISIS - although they don't have
all the evidence yet.

They have evidence against 16 of them.

Is Mise raised this issue.

However, 16 mosques out of
800,000 simply shows that even in a predominantly
Muslim country like Indonesia it is wrong to look at
all Muslims through the prism of terrorism.

Islam,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoXgZLRee0

Foxy said;
it is wrong to look at
all Muslims through the prism of terrorism.

So how do you know which ones are going to cut your throat without
looking at them all ?
Do you have a terrorism prism ?

Dear Bazz,

I take people as I find them.
I don't judge them by their religion, race,
colour, gender, age, or disability.
I judge people by the way they behave.
Most people I find are actually quite nice.

I know quite a few Muslims - and it may surprise
you to know that they are just as frightened
of extremism and fanaticism - as you appear to be.

Don't forget that Muslims themselves are the
prime victims - as Richard Dawkins stated -
"of oppressive cruelties of Islamism (especially
women)."

My medical specialists are Muslim. Some of the staff
looking after my mother in the dementia wing of her
nursing home are Muslim. Several of my working
colleagues are Muslims. As are some of my neighbours
who've also become my friends over the years.

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few.

So in judging the majority do you hope the minority will never bother you.
The Brits thought that way until someone thought to count the ones
that they knew were really a problem.Turned out to be 23,000 of them.
Hmmm

Dear Bazz,

Australia is very different from the UK.
You can't compare one country's problems
with ones that don't necessarily exist
and may never exist in another country.

Foxy,

Wanna bet?

There seems to be an active investigation going on at the moment over some people with Islamic sounding names planning to blow up (or down?) a domestic airline plane.

Some other countries seem to have had similar problems.

' My medical specialists are Muslim. Some of the staff
looking after my mother in the dementia wing of her
nursing home are Muslim. '

wonderful Foxy and as long as they don't follow Mohammed's example all should be good.

Foxy,
You don't judge people on religion, race, colour, gender, age or disability.
That's very Australian, to offer a fair go.
I hate having to deny my Aussieness in respect to them.
All we are in that context is the weaker race being lead to slaughter.
Not prepared to do what the other side is prepared to do.

Do you not think they judge you on religion and race.

You kindness and generosity might see you bitten by that snake, and if not your kids and grandkids most certainly will get bitten by the snake you cared for.

Foxy,
Glad to see you have some contact with some nice muslims. Perhaps you just assume they are muslim.

Come to think of it, my GP is dark skinned and, by his accent, he was foreign born. Never asked him his religion but he is thorough and seems a good GP. We get on well. Have never asked the religion of local hospital staff or specialists.

Are you aware that ALL those that we have locked up for planning terrorist acts are muslim

Also that those that have actually carried out terrorist acts in Aus are/were muslim

What does that tell you?

Dear AC,

Actually these people that I mentioned are
caring for me and my family. I wouldn't be
here today if it were not for my medical
specialists and my mother would also not be
making the progress that she currently is
without her Muslim carers. We can only speak
from our own experiences in life, I guess.
Plus my religion is not one that teaches
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Dear Banjo,

I don't assume that they are Muslim. I know
they are.

As for the actions of what some people do?

Crime and violence has been part of this
country's history and still exists in our
society. It is not just confined to one group
though and continuously blaming one group is
simply wrong. Also looking at the causes of
why some people behave the way they do might
help us find the solutions to problems. Blaming
religion for some people's actions is rather
easy and simplistic. We can do better than that
surely?

Foxy,
You must live in a completely different world to me because I would never take up a busy medico's time by asking about his/her religion. Believe me I have spent many, many hours with patients in hospitals and medical facilities getting treatment for serious conditions like transplants, breast cancer and lung cancer. Never have I heard doctors, staff or patients mention religion at all. Doctors and staff are too busy to talk about anything but the welfare of the patient and related matters.

You seem to like giving us links to look up. Well you should try this link below, it will give a different point of view than that you usually give us. It is quite recent.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=66444&cat_id=593&Australia%2DCounter%2DTerrorism%2DRaids%2DIntended%2Dto%2DFoil%2DAttacks

Dear Banjo,

Yes apparently we do have different experiences
with people. My medical professionals took a
personal interest in me from the start.
- I don't know why.
I can honestly say that we've become firm friends
with quite a few of them.
My husband and I even attended the wedding of one
of them. Perhaps they liked talking to me. I do
know that when I was in hospital I had many staff
members come into my room just to sit and talk.
And we would talk about a wide variety of things.

But then I've been talking to all sorts of people
for most of my life. I've explained in the past on
this forum that I find humans the most extraordinary
creatures, and that a big part of me still wants to
reach an even greater understanding of who we are.
Not because I need to know more necessarily, but
because I am drawn to the process of discovery.
If someone asks what makes me happiest, it is never
anything I can quantify like a house or a possession
or something I can touch. It is the spirit of the
human being, which can fill me with more joy than
anything in the world.

And that's what I've learned in my life's journey thus
far, that my spirit is uplifted by these encounters.
Yes, I have met some bad people along the way. But
I have also met some amazing souls, and its they who
inspire me.

Dear Banjo,

I read part of your link and then lost interest.
The writing is rooted in generalisations, negativity,
antipathy, hostility, even fear. Its too vague and
sweeping in its scope.

I got your link confused with - "The National Review,"
which I do enjoy reading very much. It presents the
American right-wing conservative point of view but it
does it in a well-reasoned and intelligent way.

Anyway, Thank You for thinking of me. I do appreciate it.

From Cory Bernardi today: "a report this week indicated ....(that) our country has been going backwards over the past ten years and most of the reason can be traced back to government decisions".

Foxy,

I read part of Banjo's link and the opening paragraph was

"Got Muslims? Got Jihad. All over the lands of the infidels, whether first-world or third-world, wherever colonies of mohammedans have become established, our police and associated law enforcement agents are being run off their feet trying to keep ahead of a/ the criminal activity so often engaged in by mohammedans nd b/ seditious and usually mass-murderous jihad terror plots hatched by mohammedans."

What's not true about that?

Dear Is Mise,

Replace the word Muslim with any other group you care to
name and perhaps you just may understand what's wrong
with that paragraph. BTW - I've already explained in my post
to Banjo as to why I stopped reading that particular link.

Perhaps you should read people's posts before asking them
questions that have already been explained.
Or are you out to simply provoke. That's the behaviour of
a troll - and not worthy of you.

The BBC certainly alludes to the possibility of Australia being seen as a laughing stock; it suggests that the dual citizen/politician fiasco verges on a “comedic farce”, and the “scorn for politicians” and their inattention to detail must surely have the populace asking how they can be sure
that the people they are electing to represent them and advance their country will do just that?

The recent travel allowance rorts and failures to declare assets have not gone unnoticed by the BBC either.

Foxy,

"Got HINDUS ? Got Jihad. All over the lands of the infidels, whether first-world or third-world, wherever colonies of HINDUS have become established, our police and associated law enforcement agents are being run off their feet trying to keep ahead of a/ the criminal activity so often engaged in by HINDUS nd b/ seditious and usually mass-murderous jihad terror plots hatched by HINDUS."

There you are, I've named another group for you, it's obviously untrue, so how about answering the question and not trying to move the goal posts.

Dear Is Mise,

What question was that?

cont'd ...

A criminal is a criminal and should not
be looked at as a Muslim or a Hindu.

And articles that do that don't hold my attention for long.

If they appeal to you -
That's your choice.
It's not mine.

Good heavens Foxy are you just being precious ?
Are you denying that there is a world wide problem with moslems ?

Do we have a Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, C of E crime squad ?
We do have a Middle East crime squad. We all know that means moslem.
We did have an Asian Crime Squad but I think it was disbanded or renamed.
Perhaps Yuyutsu can enlighten us there.

Hi Foxy,
I just wanted to respond to your earlier response about your medical specialists (being Muslim did you mean?) and your mum making medical progress with the help of Muslim carers.

I like it when people provide more depth and give me more food for thought, an angle I hadn't considered.

I can understand now why you might defend them in the way you do, though I also know it seems to be in your nature to give everyone a fair go, and I don't begrudge that, it is the Aussie way, only times seem to be changing..

I don't exact know what to make of it, I guess I'm still going to be stubborn and stick to my beliefs, (like ttbn said somewhere) but I accept that not all of them are necessarily bad people, and many may in fact be decent people.

But at the end of the day, all I care about is whats best for the country, and in many ways I see us going down a bad path that we won't ever be able to come back from.

I'd happily accept change, if it were for the better but in many cases I don't think it is.

Foxy,

You should take up boxing as a sport, all that ducking and weaving!!

Dear Armchair Critic,

Thanks for understanding.

I also understand where you're coming from.

You're not alone in this - and of course neither
our media nor our politicians help in this regard.

Dear Is Mise,

I wish that I could take up sport like I used to
be able to in the past but since having shattered
the femur in my right leg I have a plate put in
and I manage to walk only with the help of a walker.
I also have a plate in my right wrist as I shattered
all the bones there as well when I had my fall last
year. My left shoulder is also bung - as I shattered
the humerus.

Even ducking and weaving as you put it - I don't do
so well anymore but Thank You for your suggestion.

Hi Foxy away in NZ for a Tangi . I hope I don't upset the 'Usual Suspects' but I'll be doing my bit to put a Muslim into the Senate next election. To make matters worse my friend is a woman. Shock horror ! They have an election here in about 6 weeks time more shock Greens on 15% Labour on a poor 24%. Nationals look home and hosed. Catch you later

The title of this thread is "What a Circus !".
It is indeed:

Great panic about same sex marriage.
We all know why there is such opposition to a plebiscite.
They are frightened it would fail to pass.

Great panic about electricity prices.
Put believers in global warming in charge of the electricity
system and they handicap the generation of electricity.
If they had their way we would not have electricity at all.

Great panic about aboriginal recognition.
At current rates in a few hundred years they will all be absorbed
into the general population and almost no one will be able to tell
who is an aboriginal descendant without a DNA test.

Great panic all about a bomb plot to blow up a plane.
No need for panic, Islam is a religion of peace.

Dear Paul,

I'm looking forward to
the results of your vote as well as to - what is going to
happen with the proposed Bill for Same-Sex
Marriage. Will they decide to have a conscience
vote in Parliament or not. I think that there's
a Cabinet Meeting for the Coalition in the late
afternoon tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what they
decide and what the end result will be.

Hi Foxy, back home from NZ, been a hectic week for us. On the subject of a "conscience" vote by MP's, not something I favor in principle. Members are put there to carry out the wishes of those who elected them, and so they should. Otherwise we could grab any 150 other Australians and have a "conscience" vote conducted by them, would carry as much validity as a vote by parliamentarians based on their conscience, and what makes theirs so special. I never voted for anyone based on their conscience or lack of. I suppose in fairness to these people in parliament, well those members who actually have a conscience, not sure what number that is out of the 150, could be as low as zero, they could abstain from voting if they felt the conscience couldn't take it, to vote yes and satisfy the wishes of the vast majority.
Anyway, vote or no vote, life will carry on for gays, just as it will for the rest of us.

Dear Foxy,

I have little doubt that they will decide to have a "conscience vote" in Parliament, because it's in their political interest.
(the quotes are because I agree with Paul: how can there be a "conscience vote" by those who never had a conscience?)

This has nothing to do with homosexuals and nothing to do with marriage: homosexual marriage is ALREADY legal - it's all about handing more people a bureaucratic piece of paper.

Expanding the scope of state-sanctioned "marriage", or state-sanctioned anything for that matter, is always in the interest of politicians who want to grow their bureaucratic empire.

I have just read about the proposed bill and what hurts me most is that it will, once again, prejudice in favour of the established big churches against individual faiths. Quoting from the article in "The Australian":

"the bill will extend religious freedoms to all religious ministers, while service providers — such as bakers, florists and photographers — will need to prove a link to a religious body to object."

This means that bakers, florists and photographers whose private religion (or simply conscience for that matter) prevents them from supporting certain marriages will be persecuted, while bakers, florists and photographers who belong to an established church will be spared - how disgusting! When organised "religion" colludes with the state, that's what gives religion a bad reputation.

Dear Paul,

Welcome back.

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I'll wait and see what develops tomorrow in
Parliament.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I believe that the Liberal member from WA who's presenting
the Bill in Parliament has added certain amendments that
protects the rights of those who do not wish to
either cater to same sex weddings or perform the ceremonies
will have the right not to be forced to do it.
Tomorrow we should know what is decided in Parliament.

Hi Foxy, all that came out of yesterday was another example of how divided this pathetic government is. I didn't expect anything less. The conservative faction is doing its best to thwart the wishes of the vast majority of Australians on the issue. Talk of a plebiscite, or a postal plebiscite, that will boost the income of the post office, is a diversionary tactic by those who don't want to face the reality. Like the bulk of Australians, my gay friends are over it, they don't much care as to what a bunch of old crusty conservatives want or don't want, what they think or don't think. Its now going before the unrepresentative five percent the 'Nationals' to pass their judgement. Joke!

Dear Paul,

As expected the latest bid by the Liberals to move the issue of
same-sex marriage to a conscience vote has failed.
Only 7 Members of Parliament in their party backed the move,
meaning the party's policy remains unchanged and the word
"plebiscite" is not going away.

Will this be the final nail in this government's coffin?
I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Hi Foxy, for me it is pathetic that conservative politicians have to wrestle with their conscience, for how long now over this issue. The same bods would happily send young Australians to fight and die in some phony foreign war without as much as a beg your pardon of conscience. I'm just cynical.

Dear Paul,

No, you're not cynical at all. You're, like me,
simply disappointed that this issue has not been
settled yet and looks like it's going to drag
on and on, at taxpayer's expense.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Of course there's a positive side to all of
this.

For those who are disappointed in
the current government's firm stand on the issue
of same-sex marriage - replace the government
at the next election with one who will allow
for a conscience vote. It's not long to wait.

Oh come on, we all know why the plebiscite is opposed don't we.
Those who would want it to succeed suspect it will fail.
Don't let us be coy about it.
Those who do not want the plebiscite are afraid of democracy and being
the new left oppose free speech as well.

Don't bother trying to blame the cost, it is less than one months
interest bill and there is no fear of the Labour spending either.

Dear Bazz,

You're absolutely wrong on this one.
The Coalition wants the plebiscite because
they will delay and delay passing the
results of it to ensure that the laws are
not enacted for same sex marriage. Over
70 per cent of Australians are pro same-sex
marriage. Its the Coalition who don't want
it to succeed and the plebiscite is one way
to ensure that they can keep on delaying.

Change the government and you'll find what
Australians really think on this issue.

Turnballs claims a "financial crisis exists within the government" yet is willing to blow $122,000,000 (how many new schools or hospitals would that pay for) on a non binding phony mail order plebiscite. All to appease the far right religious fundos, and other conservative crackpots within the Coalition, whose riding instructions are to stop gay marriage at all cost.

p/s A NO vote would see the whole issue swept under the carpet, a YES vote would see the claim that, well it isn't binding anyway argument trotted out. This is simply an expensive exercise in trying to counter the wishes of 70% of Australians. Nothing to do with democracy, any everything to do with appeasement of the obstructionists in society, like the Catholic Church.

Oh Foxy, that is the tamest answer you have ever given and you never
explained why the opposition is opposed to the plebiscite.
It is as plain as your nose that Bill Shortlan is scared of the plebiscite.
Anyway the polls show the majority, 65% last I saw, wants the plebiscite.

I think the postal vote is silly, it will distort the result because
it is not compulsory and the postman delivering it will be followed
around lifting them from letter boxes.
It is open to so much rorting that the result will never be accepted.

Dear Bazz,

It's late and I don't have the time or the
inclination to delve into this subject
any further. The web is full of various
opinions on this subject that you can
Google for yourself - the explanations as to why
the Coalition wants the plebiscite.

Over 70 per cent of Australians want same-sex
marriage. And delaying tactics are simply not
going to work any more. If the Coalition
proceeds with the plebiscite - they will be
out of office at the next election.
You may think
I'm lame in what I'm saying - but I am accurate.

Dear Foxy,

«Over 70 per cent of Australians want same-sex marriage.»

Including myself:

Do I want same-sex marriage?

- Yes.

Do I want the state/government to conduct them?

- No.

I don't want the state/government to conduct ANY marriages.
I will vote accordingly.

---

Dear Paul,

$122,000,000 is indeed a lot, too much.
But for nearly the same price, the ballot paper could include not just one question, but a dozen, perhaps even 40 different questions about many areas of life - that would make it worthwhile.

One such question could be whether we want the government to conduct marriages at all: marriage-equality can be achieved in other ways too!

Another question could be regarding euthanasia.

---

If same-sex marriage is going to be recognised by the state (not "legalised" since it is legal already), then it is only fair that those already married according to the previous definition of "marriage" are to be allowed to become "un-married", since the marriage to which they agreed was not according to the new definition. They should not be forced to live apart for a year just for that.

The conservatives under Howard had no problem with conscience, or seen no need for a plebiscite asking the people in 2004 when they rushed through legislation banning the possibility of gay marriage, by altering the Marriage Act. Times have changed.

Poor old Turnball's, is on record as unloading big time on the ridiculousness of a voluntary plebiscite. He now finds himself having to placate the governments right wing crazy fundos, and argue what a good idea it is. A bit like when you were a kid and were made to kiss your Aunt Mary, and smile at the same time, even though you hated her guts.

Yuyutsu, why stop at 40, we could make it 500, BTW question number 486 what is you favorite color of shoe laces. Malcolm's used to be black, but Barnyard and Phony Tony have told him its now pink. Lucy is busy threading pink shoe laces into all of Malcolm's shoes. A reporter asked him yesterday. "What's the go with the shoes PM?" Malcolm answered "I look great in black shoes with pink shoe laces!"..."It shows leadership!", Barnyard and Phony Tony were seen nodding in agreement in the background.

Bazz,

No, the opposition is not scared of a plebiscite. All polling since 2004 has shown that the majority support same-sex marriage. A recent study, involving the same 17,000 subjects since 2005, has also revealed a profound shift in public opinion:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/hilda-survey-marriage-equality-same-sex/8763124

So any claims, that all the polling is somehow being fudged, can now be dismissed as completely nuts.

The actual reasons for rejecting a plebiscite have been noted so many times now that I have no need to repeat them here, and appeals to democratic ideals are disingenuous given that we trust our politicians to vote on every other issue for us (that doesn’t require a referendum); some with far greater repercussions than allowing same-sex couples to marry, too.

The call for a plebiscite is nothing more than a desperate, last-ditch delay tactic.

Well AJ Philips,
Your response is as devoid of real answers as is Foxy's.
I have no opinion on the reliability of the polls.
Those who are convinced that the same sex change is favoured by the
majority they should be keen to get it proved and then implemented
as quickly as possible. Then it will all be over.

I suspect that majority is in favour but I do not KNOW it is so.

If they are doubtful that the majority is in favour of same sex
marriage then the last thing they would want is a plebiscite.
They already know that the polies are in favour.

If a postal vote is done there will always be argument that the result
was incorrect by the losing side.

The only real argument that I have seen against the plebiscite is that
there will be vilification against those in favour.
The only vilification I have seen is against those against same sex.

See labour has just forced a further delay into a decision.
The plebiscite is the only way to get a definite indisputable result.

How is my response devoid of answers, Bazz?

<<Your response is as devoid of real answers as is Foxy's.>>

I hinted at a preference for a free vote in parliament because of the deleterious effects that a plebiscite would have, and pointed out how and why appeals to democratic ideals are disingenuous.

Please tell me what more there is to address. I’d be happy to comment further if you could.

<<I have no opinion on the reliability of the polls.>>

Of course not, now that it would be foolish to claim that they are all rigged.

One thing that fascinates me about this debate is the fact that the nay-sayers are so gosh-darned determined to insist that they are in the majority (or at least avoid conceding that they are indeed in the minority). On most other issues, people seem happy enough to acknowledge when they are in a minority. Some even revel in it. Not on this issue, though. No, we’re all in the majority on this issue, apparently.

Strange.

<<If they are doubtful that the majority is in favour of same sex marriage then the last thing they would want is a plebiscite.>>

That would be the case, yes. But then, they may also be against a plebiscite because of concerns for the mental health issues that we can know would result from an inevitable and ugly hate campaign preceding the vote.

<<If a postal vote is done there will always be argument that the result was incorrect by the losing side.>>

Agreed. A vote would need to be compulsory to have any validity.

<<The only real argument that I have seen against the plebiscite is that there will be vilification against those in favour.>>

No, I haven’t seen that argument. The concerns I’ve seen raised are with regards to the mental health effects on the gay community. Why would people in favour of marriage equality care about what a few bigots thought of their opinion on the matter?

Or do you actually think that the only people in favour of marriage equality are themselves gay?

AJP said;
That would be the case, yes. But then, they may also be against a
plebiscite because of concerns for the mental health issues that we can
know would result from an inevitable and ugly hate campaign preceding
the vote.

Oh really, you are offering that as a reason not to have a plebiscite ?
If they are that fragile perhaps they are in the wrong lifestyle or
they should not indulge in the hate campaign.

Yes, Bazz, I am.

<<Oh really, you are offering that as a reason not to have a plebiscite ?>>

So are many others. Where have you been? You make it sound like I just made it up then.

<<If they are that fragile …>>

There is nothing particularly fragile about minority stress. It's a very real phenomenon, and a very normal and predictable response to marginalisation.

<<… perhaps they are in the wrong lifestyle …>>

Homosexuality is not a choice.

<<… or they should not indulge in the hate campaign.>>

They’re not, that I can tell. If people want to be bigots, then that’s their prerogative, but they don’t get to cry, “Hate campaign!”, when others point out their bigotry.

If you don't like the so-called "hate campaign" against those who are against marriage equality, then provide a rational reason against same-sex marriage, because just getting squeamish over the thought of two blokes kissing isn't a rational reason to be opposed to it.

AJP, democracy is more important than someone getting stressed.
If someone feels that way they can shut themselves off until it is over.
I am sure there would be organisations that would provide a filtered
news environment for those at such risk.

Certainly, Bazz.

<<democracy is more important than someone getting stressed.>>

But we’re not just talking about one person here. Nor are we necessarily just talking about mere stress.

I see no reason as to why this issue, specifically, needs to go a plebiscite (especially a non-binding one) over any other issue.

We allow politicians to vote on our behalf on a wide range of issues all the time; issues that have far greater repercussions than marriage equality. I have never heard a reasonable argument as to why this issue should be so different.

<<If someone feels that way they can shut themselves off until it is over.>>

That’s an unreasonable expectation, and probably wouldn’t be possible.

It would be more realistic to argue a case for why the deleterious effects of an ugly debate are worth the benefits of holding a plebiscite. If that can’t be done, then a plebiscite should be abandoned.

It is not worth compromising the health of an entire demographic just because some, who cannot even rationally justify their position, want to be able to fruitlessly scrawl a tick in a ‘No’ box.

Dear Bazz,

I'm sorry that you obviously did not Google the reasons
as to why a plebiscite is
being opposed by so many thinking people.

A.J. Phillips has explained things rather well. And I
shall add a bit to what he's stated.

As AJ and myself have pointed out a plebiscite will only delay
same-sex marriage. The last time Australia had a plebiscite
was in 1977 on the question of the National Anthem. It took
seven years to implement the result.

Unlike a Referendum governments are not bound by the
results of a plebiscite.

Voting in a plebiscite is not compulsory and a plebiscite
can be open to political manipulation because it isn't
regulated by strict rules like a Referendum or an Election.

It is not binding on Parliament to make a decision
consistent with the results. So even if Australians
overwhelmingly vote for same-sex marriage it will still
lie in the hands of politicians to actually change the law.

The costs involved in a plebiscite are huge and spending it
on something that may take years to implement, is not
binding, and legally doesn't hold much water - seems like
a dreadful waste.

The High Court has already confirmed that
Parliament can already make it happen. Parliament can
legislate and enact same-sex marriage if a cross-party
free vote is granted.

We already know that Australians support same-sex marriage.
The Liberal Party's go-to research company - Crosby/Tettor
has found 72% of the public already support it. Which is
higher than many countries with same-sex marriage.

We elect and pay politicians to represent us and make laws.
They have done so many times without consulting us.
A majority of Australians want same-sex marriage NOW.
The politicians should stop delaying and simply
get on with the job.

It was politicians who created the 'Marriage Act' in the first place, without the "benefit" of a plebiscite. They should be able to alter it without that "benefit". Howard did. Those who want no change can vote nah, and the rest can vote I, I believe the I's would have it.

Malcolm Turnbull until he morphed into Malcolum Turnballs totally ridiculed the idea of a plebiscite. Now he claims it shows leadership. Yeah Malcolm it sure does, but whose leadership.

However, on the question of "Should National Party members be allowed to marry their sheep?" That defiantly requires a plebiscite, or a vote at the UN or something. I personally agree, but I want it limited to four wives at a time.