mhaze, thank you for your input. It's nice to hear from a well versed source every now and then. There are few and far between though.

Some of the views, on the Forum, I find out of touch with the real world. I wonder if this is politically correct teaching at it's best.

People find it untrue that history is written and reported differently from the truth. Such is politics, (PC) and hidden agenda. The truth is not that far away; If you 'really' want it!

mhaze, correct, Pig Iron Bob was as you say AG and later Minister for Industry in the Lyons government, becoming PM in 1939. Your defence of the Liberal Party founder is rather touching. His admirers do their best to hide his true colours. For example as PM Menzies was gung-ho when it came to war, Korea, Vietnam, yet in 1914-18 as a 19 year old he failed to volunteer for military service. I would have thought as a ardent monarchists Menzies would have been the first in the queue to offer his services for king and country, be on the first boat to the front line. Not so, Menzies sat out WWI in the comparative safety of Australia, in the context of the times, deserving of a white feather for a display of cowardliness.

leoj,

More accusations instead of facts from you I see.
More attempts to try to discredit me.
And more attempts at manipulation and diversion.

This discussion is not about me. What
you think of me is of no interest. You're using
classic bullying and manipulation tactics.
Do try to contribute something to the discussion.

This discussion is about -
Should Australia debate becoming a Republic in
2018?

There are many sites on the web regarding Mr Turnbull's
comments concerning the debate of Australia becoming
a Republic.

The Prime Minister said - if the issue gained enough
public support, there would need to be a "honest,
open" debate on the model for electing a President.

"Whether the President would be chosen by Parliament,
you know, in a bipartisan, two-thirds majority as
proposed in '99 or directly elected, that is the rock
on which the Referendum floundered in '99."

And the PM stressed that -

"You've got to have that discussion and it may be that
a plebiscite, maybe even a postal survey, given the
success of the marriage postal survey, could be one way to
deal with that."

The Prime Minister reiterated his belief that the
Australian people and not the Parliament, must drive the
change.

"It's very important to recognise this is not a change
that Parliament can make. This is a question for the
Australian people and Australians have shown themselves to be
very conservative when it comes to constitutional change.
...there is no point in pretending that there is an
appetite for change when there isn't one at the moment."

Since Federation in 1901 only 8 out of 44 proposals for
Constitutional change have been supported by voters.

There's more in the January 1st 2018 issue of The Herald Sun.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/barely-coherent-turnbull-hits-out-at-keating-criticism-over-australian-republic

Show me the determined masses, full of resolve, and I'll show you a Republic in the making....'till then back to your cooking shows

ALTRAV,

"..., all those aspiring to become politicians and all those who are currently politicians have one thing in common. They are lying, scheming thieves."

That is a somewhat naive opinion.
The current and past MPs of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmer's Party are without exception dedicated to helping their constituents and representing their constituent's interests.

No one can say a word against them as MPs.

There have been other MPs who were totally honest and in no way feathered their own nests Ben Chifley and Arthur Caldwell of Labor come to mind, Bob Menzies and Artie Fadden on the other side.
One should not forget that epitome of honest politics Edward St John
who fought fearlessly for what he considered to be right.
"Lance" Sharkey, a dedicated Communist, should also be included in a list of honest politicians who never sought monetary gain from their position.

Paul1405, SOOO you are a communist sympathiser. Why didn't you say so in the beginning, it would have saved a lot of inferences.

I could not care less how many commo's voted. 'incidentally 65,000 voted for the commo party'. Big deal, the other many millios, did not!
I'll bet probably most of them were wharfies.

It only means these were union stooges who knew no better. Do I have to insult you before you open your eyes to the politics of the day. These actions on the wharf and the like were not something they wanted publicised or you would have seen some form of public revolt.

It was promoted as simple strike actions and well within the wharfies rights. So the public at large did not pick up on the ramifications of a seemingly justified action such as striking.

And besides in those days there was a wharfie strike every second day, it seemed.

Did you forget that I am quoting actual people who were there and affected by these scumbags. So don't you dare be-little me or my arguments in a futile and irrelevant attempt to make yourself look like an authority on such things.

You are being belligerent and petulant if you even think about justifying what that scum did back then. Anyway where were you when this all went off? Of course you would have been one of the wharfies/communists.

If you cannot see that what I say was at least feasible/possible then your input in any forum is in serious doubt.

Do you not understand this topic is not open for discussion, but merely one to report the facts of the day. So if you weren't around at the time, your comments are moot.