Yet another refugee from this party its recent past is telling, what about those who voted for this party? those who put these refugees in the Senate? can one nation survive?

Belly,

Given you personal bias, you would be hoping they would not survive.

Hanson will survive if she can come to terms with the fact that, apart from Roberts, she consistently attracts self- serving ratbags who think that they would make better leaders she is because she is a woman and a fish frier and not the most articulate of people. The people using her to get their snouts into the parliamentary trough have shown her more disrespect and contempt than have even the loopiest of the Greens.

Pauline Hanson should content herself with being an independent. She is tough, sincere and well meaning. She should stay well clear of the really chauvinistic, nasty loser males who are just using her. The hick, whose name hasn't stuck with me, rabbiting on about handshakes and his father should be punted out forthwith.

Quite right! I do have a very strong bias against One Nation it can be seen while not openly expressed in my comments re the Senate. I will always be biased against minority party's who only by blackmailing the majority, can achieve any thing.
Founded on the fears and loathing of a very few of us, maybe the worst of us? it has an even lower first preference than the Greens, in truth this may be the end, who? can know with any certainty the person they vote for is going to remain in Ms Hanson,s privately owned ATM/Party?

Dear Belly,

Amanda Stoker, Queensland Liberal Senator stated that -
"Senator Hanson needs to re-evaluate her management style.
There comes a point where you say - after 20 or so people
have come and gone from my party room, maybe it's me."

Senator Hanson hasn't just lost individual parliamentarians
but as Laura Tingle states on the 7.30 Report - what once
appeared as a potentially potent source of power bloc - is
now down to just two votes in the Senate.

David Oldfield stated on the news recently that Senator
Hanson insists on running the Party that carries her name.
So if the Party is plagued by a run of people who don't work,
she has no one to blame but herself.

Will the Party survive?
Who knows?
In politics predicting anything is a risky business at the
best of times. However - Laura Tingle tells us that -
"Even in this colourful Parliament where no one seems aligned
to anyone for any length of time anymore, the last two
sitting weeks offer genuine surprises galore."

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that there are rumours circulating
that Mark Latham may be aksed (or perhaps he's
already been asked) to join One Nation. He hasn't
denied it. Now that would make things even more
interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Anything is possible.

Makes you wonder what's going on in Mark Lathem's head. Then again any drop kick will do. That is all one nation was formed on.
I can't figure out how anybody would vote for such a rag tag lot, if that is what the far right looks like they will need heaps more than good luck.

Dear doog,

When voters are unhappy with the major parties
they are looking to give their vote to someone
else. Enter One Nation.

How did Trump get elected?

Foxy,
Spot-on. The supporters of the major parties will always belittle the minor parties without getting it through their thick skulls that the reason minor parties get to pop up everywhere.
If ALP performed satisfactorily then we'd never get an LNP government & vise versa.
I was a staunch supporter of Labor but when Whitlam turned it into the Academic Leeches Club (ALP) I scooted. I also scooted after Abbott annoyed Indonesia about the drug runners & gave HRH Phil a Knighthood. Some may think it a rather petty reason to change my mind but to me it showed that he was utterly out of touch & not fit to occupy the PM position. Add to this the abhorrent tactics by Centrelink & the ATO.
We really need someone to keep the whole show in check & at this stage ON can do where the Democrats sold out.

Dear individual,

I think many people are beginning to question their
politicians and are demanding more from them.
It will be an interesting election year coming up
that's for sure.

Many people are concerned about big business wielding
power and influence over both parties. Many feel that
our country is now governed by and for wealthy people
and corporations. As well as the vested interests of
overseas investors. The Coalition's company tax package
is not popular. It will be interesting to see if it
passes in the Senate.

How do you feel about Mark Latham returning to politics?

Abbott was the product of a disgruntled community but that did not work either. Abbott supporters would be one nation voters, only because of their anti Muslim one hat fits all stance.
The differences are a political party or a protest party I think the minor parties are a waste and only disrupt the true process of govt; with the power of veto or negotiate, which weakens laws or changes that are necessary by an elected govt;
An elected govt; surely has the right to govern. In times of vote it should be between the elected govt and the opposition. Minor elected persons partake in discussion only.

Dear doog,

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting opinions
is to me fundamental to democracy. Governing
parties must resist the temptation to equate their
own policies with the "national good", or they will
tend to regard opposition as disloyal or even
treasonable. That's how totalitarian regimes work.

It is important that governments recognise the
grievances of minorities that have little political
clout. If the losers in the political process don't
accept the legitimacy of the process under which
they have lost, they may resort to more radical tactics
outside the institutional framework.

Much to comment on but let us stick to the subject, yes voters are unhappy, and that plays a roll in the formation of one nation, but from its first birth, the anti Asian days,people seem to expect miracles from it,and too place refugees and migration ahead of any thing, no one nation can not survive this, if an election of both houses took place it is doubtful Hanson would be returned, IF Latham, a worm infested version of what he told us he once was, took a roll he may well emerge the leader of what ever right/lost group replaces one nation.

must comment on the thought most voters are sick of politicians, to rebut that I only need point at the poll numbers of Rudd Hawk and Howard, all had very high numbers at one time, also, watch and see Trump by his election, will see a much stronger Democrat party more able to reform , it will take place, for both majors, here,

Where the two majors are really disgusting is the way they prevent the other from doing well & all this at our expense.
Look at the flak the GST got when first proposed by, was it Keatinge ?
Well, guess what's been saving our bacon since it was introduced by Howard ? You guessed right, the good old GST.
If only they'd stop polishing the leather seats in that massive outhouse & introduce a Flat Tax ! Perhaps that could be done for wage earners for a start & gradually, as the economy improves, bring the others on board.
AND start a non-military national Service to reduce the massive, negative economic impact of Welfare.

I hope it does not happen but the abc and regressives are in total denial re problems caused by Islam. I think Islamic attacks in Australia are envitable. The more Muslims the higher risk of attacks. Depending on the timing of these attacks will determine whether Hanson gets more or less support.

I think that the next election choice will be
between Turnbull and Shorten. Of course I could
be wrong - who knows what will happen prior to
that time. However I've come across this interesting
link that I'd like to share:

http://theconversation.com/mis-red-why-bill-shorten-is-not-a-socialist-91752

I'll try to find an interesting one on Mr Turnbull as well
for my next post.

Australian Newspaper June 1, 2018 - Pauline Hanson breaks down on TV over One Nation tensions
Yes Pauline Hanson has failings ... I'm sure she's evil, corrupt, unsophisticated ... all the demonizing terms that you can think of. I'm sure we are all these things in varying amounts. But ... she has courage and tenacity - attributes that used to be a defining parts of Australian character ... she has fought for twenty years against immigration with very little reward in the face of intense propaganda, ridicule, and attack. In a time when we have seemingly forgotten Voltaire's principles of free speech in the embodiment of "the good". We have lived through the different stages of this debate - when immigration was low we thought she was wrong, when immigration increased we were advised that the things we were seeing were our imagination, now we see that immigration will change the face of Australia. While we did nothing Pauline Hanson has worked to protect our interest. Our culture has created something in Australia over the last 200 years that like the Eureka Stockade is founded in our common bonds, beliefs, culture, mateship something that those on the edges of society are trying to deconstruct - we the majority have given these groups on the edge of our society - power - and now they use it to attack us. At least Pauline Hanson has tried to do something to save our Australian culture. Paraphrasing the Eureka Stockaders - "We built Australia so we own it" - otherwise we are homeless - if we naively give up our home do you expect anyone to give us a new one. We must take responsibility and protect our home. There are issues in every relationship and I'm sure One Nation has them too - they can be very painful. The wolves are howling at Pauline Hanson but are they the voices of reason or are they the ones that want to deconstruct nations, communities, families and turn them over to a massive globalized juggernaut.

Some of the "immigration supporters" will go as far as to relate what they see as "racist anti immigration views" as being like "Hitler killing the Jews" - like every "racist" has a little army with a gas chamber. Most people, even people that don't agree with a high (or otherwise) immigration policy are appalled at the deaths in the gas chambers. "Immigration supporters" sometimes say that opposition to multiculturalism is the thin edge of the wedge - but this could be an oversimplification by ideologues and the self serving. The more wise people will understand that it is just an attempt to discredit them at the expense of the memory of the lives that ended so terribly. However the intention is not to have a long disection of Hitler's motivation and the history of Jewish people in 1930's Germany.

Pauline Hanson has said "How many immigrants is enough?" and was met with blank looks.

I admire people that say the right things at a time when people don't yet believe them. Hopefully one day we can all be as great and wise as they are. Then we can live in peace.

In Australia we haven't always supported Pauline Hanson but many of us are waking up to the idea that Australia is a very different place - in a bad way. Hopefully the younger Australian's are able to remember when Australia was owned by Australian's. Every culture should have their own country - its the responsibility of the people to leave its children their due.

Pauline has had a tough few days - I would offer to give her a hug - but she would say I'm a softy. Hopefully she can make up with her colleagues over a beer or a shandy.

We're Australian.

Make sure you vote for anti-immigration (One Nation, Sustainability Australia, etc) in the senate because both major parties support high immigration. And fly your Aussie flag.

Here is an interesting link predicting Pauline
Hanson's future:

http://theaimn.com/pauline-hansons-one-nation-doomed/

In history humanity has always been ruled by minorities. The current minorities appear to have certain threads in commmon with historical cultural currents such as industrialization, communism, militarism, academism / scientism / priestism.

Communists - In history we have already had a number of failed communist experiments. They believe that everything is about the worker vs the employer - an oversimplistic view of the world (see Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes).

Industrialists / Corporates - all industrialists care about is money (see Friedman). They seem to believe Australia is a machine for making money and the culture of the people don't matter as long as there is cheap labour for the businesses.

Militarists - they want to occupy territory

Academism / Scientism - they want to be the proclaimed experts so they get to make the decisions independent of their scientific merit (see Kuhn - Academic Democracy). Many academics seem to believe that only those with academic merit (ie. a PhD) should contribute to policy. Perhaps they want to create a "Kuhn-ian" world - maybe we should call it "Kookism". Many of us believe that is not an academics qualifications that are valuable to society but their reason - which is shared with others in the community.
_______________________________

Democracy attempts to smooth out the interests within a community so that it is fair - but special interest groups always try to subvert the system so that they get more power. Something that can seem to be "just" at one time can turn out not to be - there is evidence in historical overturning of laws. This is why we must fall back to the position that laws and principles "shouldn't be inserted under the radar" of democratic processes. Churchill put it well paraphrasing - Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

All laws and principles have positive and negative - The negative examples below for which generally only the positive are presented.

Example 1. Diversity policies can be used to subvert Australian peoples right to democratic self interest and free speech.

Example 2. Human Rights can be used to force Australian government to accept immigrants/ refugees even when the people may or may come to believe that it is not in their self interest. Many human rights principles are from the League of Nations / United Nations - transport and communications capabilities have changed significantly since the 1950s - Massive waves of migration now spread across the world.

Example 3. Foreign student industry is a big channel for Australian migration and likely that academics are significant benefactors. Academic benefits probably come in the form of higher wages, job security, research funding, academic standing. It may not be possible to trust academic objectivity in immigration.

Example 4. There appears to be a denial of monocultures benefits in academic circles in favour of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism could be used to undermine the rights of Australian people in Australia.

The above views are held by many people and some commentators would say that we are all “racist” ok - but what does that mean.
Does it mean that it is now ok to hurt us given they have "labeled us racist".
Some say racism is divisive. But is it the “racists” or the ones who caused high levels of immigration. The "racists" say that the immigrants are crowding us out of our jobs, land, culture. (Try telling a white guy from the taxi industry that it's just their imagination). You can say that people that proclaim a White Australia policy are bad but the ones saying this may not doing so just because they disagree with the term White Australia but because "they have an agenda". I'm sure that the Eureka Stockaders will be happy with whatever "they" want to call it as long as they "give us our gold back" - as I've said above "we built it - we own it".

Dear Canem Malum,

Cave ab homine unius libri.

Dear Foxy,

You are saying be afraid of the opinions of the illiterate man who has only read a single book?

- I don't seek to convince you - I only say what I see.

- Thanks for your feedback.

Regards, Canem Malum

We drift in to other waters if we try to explain why One Nation exists,I at least understand some, far from all,think migration/refugees are changing our country, for the second time, that took place after the ww2 refugee in take, and we are a lot better for it,it remains true in buying ON its supporters bought nothing, no party I can think of, ever fell so hard so often,ignore majority thought at your peril, when talking of rights taking their rights to save minority ones is? quite silly

Canem Malum,

A little tip for you, if I may. If you want to keep the reader's attention, keep it short and to the point; it's a basic rule for good communication. You might have had something useful to say (probably did if your second short post to the serial critic of anything not Left dogma, Foxy, is anything to go by). Anonymous posters merely expressing opinions cannot attract and hold attention by going on and on. Only good, professional writers can get away with that.

Good to have some new blood, though. We are starting to look inbred, Same old same old.

Make sure you vote for anti-immigration (One Nation, Sustainability Australia, etc)
Canem Malum,
At the extremely high risk of being branded racist I'd like to propose selective immigration. Not willy nilly as in the last decades. There must be a very, very clear establishing of genuine refugees & those claiming to be refugees. Genuine refugees should be given the opportunity to rebuild their country from here & then return. This assistance must exclude money, only building materials & tools manufactured here.
We have more than ample proof that a high percentage of so-called refugees don't actually like it here but remain because of our misplaced compassion & associated generous welfare that appears not to extend to genuine Australians or those who genuinely consider this country their new home.
Pauline Hanson has to be given support instead of a constant barrage of criticism. She appears to be the only patriotic australian senator.
Those who do not agree with this proposal to help refugees should put their own proposal on the table, one that reduces the social & economic costs to the already struggling australian taxpayer.

Is Hanson a democratic person of course she is, compared to North Korea’s version of democracy she is very democratic.
America’s democracy and Australia’s democracy are democratically different. Is there a set of rules for a democracy.
Foxy used the words [To the very heart of democracy] What does that mean.
Abbott had a form of democracy that never needs to be repeated.
One person one vote, why do political parties insist on block voting, why not secret voting surely that is the most democratic.
Having to bribe an opponent to get their vote is that the best democratic way.

A truth exists we can not ignore, no party is perfect, but in our system the one that wins the most seats wins the election, tell me a better way,now yes Islam is behind much of the fear Hanson rode back in to politics on, it however ,as shown by her lower number of first preference votes than the greens is a view not shared by nearly all of us,we should aim at being the best we can be, that is as near perfection as we can ever get, dreamers, place too much faith in this woman, ignoring some truths,she runs politics like a cook in a miners job, and she has lost it this time

Dear Canem Malum,

The point that I was trying to make with the quote
that I gave earlier was - that in order for us to
move forward as a free, fair, and vibrant society -
we should not succumb to the siren calls of demagogues,
charlatans and ideologues.

Life is like a prism. What you see depends on
how you turn the glass.

Dear ttbn,

You have your entire life to continue to be a jerk.
Why not take today off?

Dear doog,

You asked what my reference to "the very heart of democracy
meant."

Democracy can only thrive when several basic conditions
have been met. Which includes - restraints on government
power (democracy is best served if there are institutionalised
checks on the power of the state), tolerance of dissent,
access to information, diffusion of power (so that no one
group can obtain a monopoly over it) and so on.

I think Belly is trying to say that we are better of for having immigration. Tell that to victims of African gangs, Belly. Tell it to Australians being pushed out of their neighbourhoods by Muslim colonists. Tell it to your erstwhile workmates whose wages are stagnant because of mass immigration. Tell it to the 750,000 unemployment Australians who can't get work because it's cheaper to import foreigners en masse rather than train Australians (John Howard is to blame for that)

Contrarily, Belly decries “taking their (the majority's) rights to save minority ones. He says that he has come in from the bush, but he doesn't seem to be aware that the majority is losing its rights to the minority in Australia as is the case with all Western countries.

Lack of integrity is not an automatic entitlement to ridicule others with integrity. Sadly, this is one of the dreadful traits in our society.
Not sufficient sense to care about all that is decent & doggedly sabotage the efforts of considerate people to improve our society. ALP/LNP have now proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are unable to govern true to their doctrine due to being in the pockets of those with money made via bureaucatic designed & permitted loopholes.
One Nation has had its share of conniving infiltrators but will weather these despicables' treason.

Dear individual,

One Nation now only has two votes left in the Senate.
Their power bloc has disappeared. People are leaving
the party. Unless new recruits can be persuaded to join,
the party's future does not look good.

Bob Katter and his son have been approached to join the
party. Katter's reply was he'd join One Nation - when the
Pope turned Muslim. (smile).

On the topic of immigration...

A paper presented by the Department of Treasury and
Home Affairs found that our 2014/2015 intake alone
would contribute nearly $10 billion to the budget
over the next 50 years.

"Migrants deliver an economic dividend for Australia due
to the current policy settings which favour migrants of
working age who have skills to contribute to the
economy." the report says.

The report also counters claims that migrants are a drag
on the welfare systems, revealing migrants are likely to
pay more in tax than they claim in social services.

Plus it also found that the existing labour market had
not been harmed by migration debunking the myth that
migrants "steal" Australians' jobs.

According to that report skilled migrants granted visas
in 2014/2015 are expected to make a net lifetime
contribution of nearly $7 billion to the budget while
those on 457 visas are expected to contribute close to
$4 billion.

The only migrants expected to cost the budget over their
lifetime are those granted refugee or humanitarian visas.

However, while making the case for immigration the report
also carried a warning that governments need to spend more
money maintaining existing infrastructure to keep up with
the pace of growth. These pressures should not only be
addressed by new infrastructure. They should also include
better use of existing infrastructure. The report states.

Of course we need better long-term planning and policies
concerning our existing infrastructure to keep up with
overcrowding in schools, hospitals, housing, worker wages,
among other things. We all have concerns in these areas.
However is cutting immigration the answer? The report says
no. Better policies and long-term planning is.

migrants of working age who have skills to contribute to the economy."
Foxy,
which countries do the migrants come from & which countries the so-called refugees ?
Which of the two groups falls into the contribute to the economy category ?
Which of the two groups integrates more easily & which are welfare dependent for ten years more/less ?
I recall quite a number of TV programs that drew attention to some migrants/refugees who have been on welfare for many years with not end in sight of their dependency.
Migration to build a nation is good, migration to empty a nation's coffers is not desirable.
I am a migrant & I have pulled my weight with no Welfare ever & no compensation for being a victim of multiple thefts.

ttbn do not make up my opinions for me, in fact I think only an integration policy would calm voters here and world wide, it worked,but yes the Apex gang, protected by PC and the inability of courts to back up our police is? dreadful, so we agree on that, are you however saying migration is all a negative? America was built on it, not that today's America is some thing to be proud about, HANSON however entered our lives with a hate filled anti Asian rant,I get the feeling she would switch to hate ANY group she thought would increase her vote/cash in take,we are watching her party die, a positive thing for this country PS it is my view faith, all of them, harms more than helps humanity

Foxy,

Most of the immigrants come with skills and employment and clearly contribute to the economy. The problem is the illegal economic migrants that cost the economy $billions.

Dear individual,

Your questions have already been answered in the
citations I gave from the Dept. of Treasury
Report earlier - as to which migrants and which
groups - and what they contribute et cetera.

As for your concerns about the type of people
that are allowed into this country? Our
authorities do a pretty good job. And new rules
have been put in place to deal with those who
break our laws. They will be severely punished.
We have a legal framework in place to deal with
those sort of problems. As for the thefts that
have happened to you. I'm sorry to hear that.
I assume that you don't have insurance. Perhaps
that's something you might want to look into.
Or take preventive measures to make your home
burglar-proof. Just a thought.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You. I had totally forgotten about the
illegal economic migrants who come by plane -
and their numbers are huge.

I wonder what's being done about them?

Belly,

I didn't make anything up. I was just translating what wrote.

No. I am not saying all immigration is negative, but it should only occur when it is needed. It is not needed now, particularly the huge intake that Scott Morrison is using to bodgie up the figures to fool us into thinking that Australia is benefitting from growth. The only people benefitting are the migrants themselves, big business and the political class. The rest of us are worse off from a GDP per head point of view. I am surprised that you, as a union man, would not want Australians fully employed before started bringing in migrants.

When immigration is necessary, which it could be from time to time, I have no objections to who comes here, except for Africans and Muslims of any race. They must have a job to come to, and they must speak English. Pauline Hanson's speech against Asians was embarrassing, but she has since backed off on that.

I have never voted for PH; I don't think One Nation has ever fielded candidates in SA: certainly not in my electorate.

Dear Belly,

The report from the Department of the Treasury, presented
to the Federal Government stresses that cutting Australia's
migration rate would cost the budget billions of dollars,
lower living standards and reduce jobs growth. The Report
prepared by the Departments of Treasury and Home Afairs
found that "Migrants deliver an economic dividend for
Australia due to the current policy settings which favour
migrants of working age who have skills to contribute to
the economy."

This in turn increases Australia's GDP and GDP per
person, with positive flow-on effects for living standards.
A reduction in immigration would shrink Australia's
workforce.

Of course the report also carries a warning that governments
need to spend more money maintaining existing infrastructure
to keep up with the pace of growth. These pressures should
not only be addressed by new infrastructure they should also
include better use of existing infrastructure.

Your questions have already been answered in the
citations I gave from the Dept. of Treasury
Report earlier - as to which migrants and which
groups - and what they contribute et cetera.
Foxy,
What am I missing, I can't see any of my questions answered in your previous post ?
There's a bit about 10 billion over 50 years but nothing about the long-term welfare recipients nor which regions they're from. For a Treasury these are extremely vague figures.

The problem for One Nation and Pauline Hanson is, if they are going to articulate a reasonable political argument, then they need to attract potential politicians whose intelligence level is at least equal to that of the average dip stick! So far the party has failed miserably to attract anyone with enough intelligence to be able to even scratch themselves without stuffing it up.

Calling for the political prostitute Mark Latham or the imbecile Corny Banana to joint, could well see the demise as leader of the Lovely Pauline. The enlistment of anyone with an IQ above 20, Pauline's level, and the aforementioned duo would just make that, then her leadership would be under threat from a political genius within!

Slightly off topic but... Many of us don't care about the money. Australia is not a business to be exploited - it is our home. If we have the land we can survive - Australians have traditionally been a very self reliant people. But as the American Indians say "we cannot eat money". If we allow another culture to occupy our land then it is no longer ours. Every culture should have their own country. Global businesses in Australia may try to convince the government that its in our interest to sell off - but they are doing it for their interest not ours. People on the edges of our society will never understand why the relationship with the land is so important. People on the edge of society probably don't feel a strong Australian identity - if they believed in Australia they wouldn't approve of the massive changes that have occurred. We own Australia and we say who comes in - not the Government, the Businesses, the Socialists. If the economy goes into deficit then fine. If there aren't jobs then we can live off the land and look after the old and the young Australians. The children are our immortality. Other cultures don't care about us - why should they - we shouldn't care about them. Australia is a desert nation - you cannot fill it with people due to its holding capacity. Some dispute the Malthusian catastrophe saying its not the food capacity that is important but the GNP = C + G + I + X. I could discuss the macro-economics of Malthus and Ricardo but I've been advised by "ttbn" to keep it short. Every culture should have its own country - Multiculturalism is a failed experiment. Now it just depends on how bad the failure will be for the people of Australia. If we allow the population in Australia to get much higher it will be an ecological and economic disaster. We don't want money we want our country.

CM, are you plugging the Lovely Pauline? If not, why not? She certainly needs plugging!

Good to see The Mad Katter, giving One Nation short shift. Not likely to vote for Bob, however me thinks he's good value, if nothing else.

Dear Paul1405,

Senator Hanson certainly has had quite a week.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Had my morning walk in the rather dirty waters of facebook and gee it is heated on the subject of one nation,still finding the ultra optimists who think she will become Prime Minister, but hugely out numbered by those who think she will be the only member of her party left after the next election she has a six year term in that house unsure if her last complying member has three or six years Mark Latham? if he gets on board it could become Latham's Loathsome lay about,s

Hi Belly,

Mark Latham has been a major Labor disappointment. The Party gave him politically everything he has, even a shot at the very pinnacle of Australian politics. and where is his gratitude, in the gutter. The alarm bells were ringing in 2004 when Latham lost a winnable election, worse still, he took the party backwards!
To describe him as a 'Labor Rat' is an understatement. The grub has tried to get into bed with the unprincilpled political charlatan the un-liberal, un-democratic David Leyonhjelm, now he is trying to cuddle up to the air head herself The Lovely Pauline.
I can have respect for Abbott, Bernardi, even Hanson, at least I know where they are coming from, even if I don't agree with them. Latham is a self serving renegade looking out for number one, and number one only.

The blokes a joke!

Latham certainly has the knack of rattling the monkeys' cages. He and Hanson should team up and really piss off the Left.

//He and Hanson should team up//

It's funny, that idea would have never occurred to me, but now that I've heard it I so dearly wish for it to happen. Hanson and Latham together? Can you imagine the potential for hilarity? Oh gods, please, please let this happen.

Hanson has written to the boofhead asking for his resignation. Boofhead has refused to resign.

Dear Toni,

Not sure that's going to happen.

Didn't Latham join the Liberal Democrats a while
back? And I believe that David Leyonhjelm is an
ardent admirerer.

Tony Lavis Paul the thought of Latham joining the silly old duck is huge fun,but surely UNDERLINES my view the senate is a house we do not need in its current form

Can One Nation survive?

Yes.

There are more useless dimwits in the ALP/LNP & they survive so I guess ON can survive too with less of such talent.

Individual, not expecting you to agree but if they had been race houses the Ambulance would be beating one nation home, just on form they have the dills market cornered. yes they can survive but will not be around ten years from now

There are more useless dimwits in the ALP/LNP, agree Indi, but they have ample numbers to have enough of the intelligentsia to override the minority dimwits.

Belly //just on form they have the dills market cornered// I was going to agree that the Senate was the exclusive house of dills until I realized Crazy George Christensen and Barnyard Joyce are members of the lower house. There are dills elsewhere.

Belly, as a Labor man I thought you would have unloaded on Latham big time. One thing Labor folk dislike is a hard right conservative, but worse still they hate a Labor Rat, and they don't come any bigger and ratter than Rat Latham! Got an opinion?

Paul 1405 mate! gee if I gave my true opinion of Latham I would be banished! went to three of his road bus trips, as a union official, morning of the poll shook the hands of the other side, yours too, complemented them on the landslide to come, and went home to hide, this morning one nation looks as its history shows us it is, the privately owned and controlled toy of a women more suited to her fish and chip shop,if that offends you so be it

I'm trying very hard to move away from this Labor vs Liberal nonsense unless there is genuine fact or what I am led to believe to fact. The die-hard supporter slanging matches are counter-productive.
Two of these facts as I perceive them are that Coalition Governments are filling the coffers by immoral taxation & Labor are spending in immoral ways.
Jump up & down about my observation but before anyone leaves the ground find my wrongs in this first.

Even if Pauline Hanson is everything that some are saying in the media - sometimes it takes one with nothing to lose. Everyone else seems to be supporting the globalists at the expense of the local Australians. This is not a government "for the people" consequently a dictatorship based on the US Declaration of Independence. Pauline has satisfied this principle of democracy - ironic? Who is objectively a better leader? Who are the traitors? Obviously there are different levels of tyranny - what principles are appropriate here?

In ancient Chinese history some believed the family could be used as a model for a stable hierarchical society. It uses a animal based hierarchical social structure - animals live in family groups, whose stability is established over ten million years - to create a stable human society. In computer science problems can be solved as top down or bottom up - often both. Globalists believe that the top down approach is best - the commonwealth model allows for individual freedom but group cooperation. Why are globalists? - They are probably at the top! If it smells bad - it's probably bad for you! Robert Whitaker said he laughed when he heard the communist model as a child - workers, farmers, academic rulers - who promoted the academics? - who do you think - "horses to the glue factory" - hilarious... :)

But seriously - In a complex society specialisation and division of labour is necessary.

Most problems of the world can be reduced by reducing population. Many if not most countries are probably beyond the Malthusian limit already. China has been criticised for their population control measures - but they were decisive - this will have the result of greater per capita resources, environmental stability, and a more healthy demography. I'd call it a win... India in 2003 had 50% of its population under 15, 50% of government spending is lost to corruption, an expanding military. Which country is healthier? Which country is able to budget and manage its resources better. Will it use a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy to expand its occupation of other countries. The future is based on the past, the external is based on the internal, yin yang... hysterical!

You've probably seen this before. What do you see? https://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/400/chica_o_vieja.jpg

We must search for objective principles for making judgements. When I feel down sometimes I listen to Ben Goldacre's TED talk about Epidemiology.

Do we dislike Pauline because "all fish and chip people are stupid!". "She's also old - all old people are stupid - therefore they should be punished." It's very funny to see kangaroo's - especially in court - they have strange bodies ;)

Individuals bipartisan approach has the perfume of truth but time will tell. In war you have to destroy the enemies fighting capacity - can the sides beat their swords into plows... Latham doesn't need to join ON - they can vote together - so can anyone that leaves. Just as an informed Australian people can vote for the independents that have stood up for us - when others in the media, business, etc have betrayed us. The beautiful evil witch our parents warned about. ;)

pushing it claiming my dislike at least is because she is a past fish and chip shop owner
Fact is she is quite racist, blind to truth,not well schooled in politics,a self seeker, trying to own her party, and a waste of votes

What makes the left so dirty irate is that inconvenient truths are irrefutable.

"pushing it claiming my dislike at least is because she is a past fish and chip shop owner"

This is a common claim in the media - I wasn't studiously avoiding attacking you personally - I apologize if I wasn't especially clear.

"Fact is she is quite racist"

I'm unsure that calling someone racist is useful to understand the underlying reasons behind their beliefs. I've heard better logic...

"blind to truth"

A common political malady.

"not well schooled in politics,a self seeker, trying to own her party, and a waste of votes"

I'll leave these for someone else... Cheers.

Individual - I'm not sure of your view on this - but I liked the movie by Al Gore. I thought he backed up his facts very well. Irrefutable - We're not claiming to have a monopoly on the truth - your superlative was from a licensed poet I presume - but the truth can be inconvenient. It always hurts me when that elastic band comes back :

Belly, Individual did you look at the picture of the old lady?? :) https://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/400/chica_o_vieja.jpg

Canem Malum,

It's a necessary trick on OLO to remove the 's' from 'https' to get a link to come up properly, people often won't bother to look otherwise.

Thus:
http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/400/chica_o_vieja.jpg

Dear Canem Malum,

Free speech means you can say whatever you want - hate speech
is when people say things that are rightly harmful,
offensive to a particular group of people - Pauline Hanson
people find objectionable - because that's what she does.

Now you may argue that because we all have free speech we
should be allowed to listen to people who say these things.
And we should engage in healthy debate. And in principal yes,
we should always consider different opinions and different
world views - otherwise society would never progress.
However, the lady in question is not capable of debating
her views. She merely repeats them.

This opens up her opinion to criticism. Free speech works
both ways. If her speech becomes hate speech then many
people can use their right to free speech to complain and
critique her. - Not because she's a former fish and chip shop
owner - but because of what she's spouting and promoting.

Got that very right Foxy, judge one nation on its last two election results, take on boards its over all number of votes that put some of it senators in the house that senators first preference that is 77 in one case we are not talking about a mainstream party, but a decaying one soon to go belly up

he backed up his facts very well. Irrefutable
Canem Malum,
Yes, but he failed miserably in backing up his own integrity. Bet he's not game enough to publish his carbon footprint.

In defence of Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party. They have as much right to seek political office as does Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, Liberal and Labor parties, dare I say Richard Di Natale and The Greens also have the same right, as do all the rest of the motley crew.
The majority might be irksome to those who disagree, but never the less in a democracy they have the same rights as all others, including the ones you support, end of story.

judge one nation on its last two election results,
Belly,
That's simply a reflection of the electorate not One Nation. ON would be scoring much higher were they to tell as many phibs & promise as much as the ALP?LNP. The reasons for ON to trail the majors are the selfishness & disregard for others of the voters.
Just take yourself as an example; you're die hard Labor no mattter how detrimental they always are to the nation. I used to feel similar as strongly about the Coalition but i woke up.

Is Mise - Thanks for the tip. Have you seen the picture before?

Foxy - I think in the UN Hate Speech is to prevent incitement. But it has been used more broadly. Spectacularly in the UK. The Hate Speech concept is controversial and it was only with intense lobbying that the US accepted it with caveats 26 years after it was adopted and 32 years after the draft. Anyway its bad form for international law to interfere in the internal affairs of countries sovereignty. It undermines self determination. But the Socs and Caps both believe that the most important battle is between the Employers and the Workers. They just disagree on who the winner should be. This is the source of the ALT right and left movements (Read Rabbit on the ALT left - A Clockwork Greenshirt). The employers are rationalizing the workers are dividing. What will become of us. (Hilarious when its not happening to you)
The solution to conflict is a policy of population reduction that both the Socs and Caps are against. (Hilarious)
The best management involves setting the game so that people do the right things because its in their interest - No conflict for resources, no need for anti Hate Speech laws

Dear Belly,

Welcome back. Haven't seen posts from you recently. R u ok?

One Nation has lost another senator to Bob Katter. Now, if you really want to talk about 'peculiar', there is no better subject than Bob Katter.

Dear Canem Malum,

An important element in any peace process is the
international community and its mechanisms for
restraining conflict among its members.

Before the twentieth century, there were few
institutionalised ways of hostile nations to achieve
peaceful settlements. When negotiations took place,
they often occurred only after a war - for the
purpose of agreeing in a peace treaty that would
specify the spoils of the victor. Although the
structure of our international peace-making may seem
rudimentary and of course not perfect, it now offers
infinitely better prospects for helping nations to
avoid war.

Particularly in a world where all nations face a common
threat of direct or indirect involvement in nuclear
warfare, some reliable method is needed to limit
conflict among sovereign states.

Pauline Hanson is a breath of fresh air. A clear thinking lady, who actually can sort fact from fiction, & is not afraid to shout the truth from a hill top. We needed her.

What she is not is a good manager, or a good judge of people. I did hope that this time round she would hasten much more slowly in the selection of candidates, & the expansion of her party.

We are very much in need of a party to counterbalance the greens, but I'm afraid one nation & Pauline are not going to be such a party.

She has to a large extent achieved her purpose. She brought home to the political class just how unhappy many of us were at the direction they wanted to push us. Both the Labor & Liberal parties saw this, & corrected many of their bad policies. Pauline has thus had a very real & beneficial effect on the nation.

The greens are horrified of course, which proves how right her ideas & policies really are.

Can One Nation survive as a party, probably not. So thanks Pauline, you may never be able to establish a working party, but you have achieved a great deal for the average Ozzie in your efforts. You can now retire with dignity, & the gratitude of so many.

Taking Foxys advice in her first few words conflict is not my intent here in this post ever willing to get involved in verbal tennis but why at this time? Hanson, in my view is not one of the things Hasbeen called her, apart from being very near finished, she is a product of the uniformed nature of SOME voters,past ones included the DLP Palmer united, Democrats,each took votes from another party but voted with that party, EG Greens in the end, so Pauline you bought out the worst in us, those who in the end had expectations of you, that if delivered, could have crippled our trade growth, and who knows what else

Dear Belly,

Spot on as always.

really sad that One Nation is disorganised, unprofessional and definetely ununified and yet is still miles ahead of Greens/Labour in policy and character.

How do runner? may I offer as evidence one nation is none of the above its number of voters compared to both majors?

Dear runner,

One Nation miles ahead?

How so? Please explain.

runner,

On policy and character, yes, I agree with you. Unfortunately, most voters cannot be described as 'having character' or being appreciative of those who do stick to tried and true values. Most people do get the governments they deserve - its a pity that those of who do try to maintain standards have to suffer the same rubbish.

About 92 percent of voters reject one nation, every Australian should be proud of that I am

Dear Belly,

Yeah, you're right.

We got rid of the "White Australia" policy - someone
should let Ms Hanson know.

I don't think we can measure the worth or lack of worth of an idea by the percentage of voters who are for or against an idea. In a democracy we are committed to the idea that the majority rules. That is a decision making process. The majority may make a poor judgment. However, theoretically the majority determines policy so we usually abide by the decision of the majority in a democracy.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, “Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.”

I think that Thoreau was right. The only question is how do we determine who is right.

The percentage of votes that the Greens or One Nation get says little about the worth of their ideas. Most voters vote for either the Coalition or Labor because of their party loyalty, family tradition and other reasons which have nothing to do with the worth of the ideas or programs presented by the Coalition or Labor.

I vote for the Greens although I am reasonably sure they will never get more than 15% of the votes. I vote for them because I think most of their policies are good. However if those policies were presented to the public under the label of the Coalition, Labor or One Nation the vote for those policies will be different. I am more interested in policies than party labels. If the Coalition, Labor or One Nation adopted the policies of the Greens I would vote for those policies regardless of the party label over those policies.

Hi David, nice to hear from you. You as someone who is interested in the policies of political parties puts you very much in the minority. Having dealt with voters over decades your summation about voter loyalty is about where it is at. For 80% they vote the same pattern election after election, from local, state to federal. Policy is something you get from the six o'clock news. For example the complex taxation policy, for most voters the Coalition policy is in total; "The government favours tax cuts for big business, nothing for me." Labor on the other hand, their taxation policy is "Big business does no deserve a tax cut, they are rich and undeserving, we love you the battlers." On that, the Coalition have a hard sell, whereas Labor given voter perception of big business at the moment have a much easier sell. As important as any policy is the cult of the personality. For the Coalition and Labour, its very much the public persona of the leader, how he or she presents on the six o'clock news. Presently Turnbull is touring drought areas, that in itself is an exercise in showing concern, dress like a farmer, pick up a handful of dry dirt, nod as if you really care, as the drought affected tell their short, but sad story, all for mass consumption on the six o'clock news. If tax policy is not working for the government, I would have to say the drought is. This is how a leader creates the persona of caring, but its very important for all elected party people, from the leader down, to as often as possible present with empathy to those you want to represent, the appearance that I am one of you is very important these days. I must stress politicians are not simple self serving egotist with no real community concern, they are far from that. When a politician says; "I got into politics to make a difference" that generally is true, but the reality of politics puts lots of constrains on the individual, from the leader down.

About 92 percent of voters reject one nation, every Australian should be proud of that I am

Belly,
This obviously makes you happy but as for me this makes me sad to see so little patriotism.

Individual you and I will never ever agree,on any thing, but your view of patriotism, thankfully, is far different than mine, as is your view of just about any one who works for a living or collects welfare, Paul, well I am bound to think many, too many, voters do not put enough thought in to how and why they vote, but here we part ways, my evidence is your greens and one notion! deliberate miss spelling, the thought the majority, gee bloke, get it wrong? we are not, thankfully, Americans, voters usually get it right

Time will show that Americans "got it right" with Trump. In fact, that has already been shown; they are already better off than they were under the last three presidents.

Belly,

What is it that goes against your grain from my desire to keep this Nation from deteriorating due to PC & muzzling free speech ?
To be quite honest, you're a puzzle. On one hand you state your love for this country, yet on the other hand you denounce people who care about it. The political party you're so loyal to has now on several occasions nearly run this Nation into the ground & fortunately there are fence-sitters who bail us out at the end of every Labor Government. Admittely, they only do this so a conservative administration can fill the coffers again for the next rorting term. Still preferable though than being totally ruined if they didn't change Governments.
I will support your party if they can proof they can run a country. Thus far they have not done so.

Below is what I found on Google.

Patriotism is love for your country and loyalty towards it.
He was a country boy who had joined the army out of a sense of patriotism and adventure.
We live in an age when patriotism is often sneered at.

Dear individual,

As far as I know - "patriotism" is not just for
a select few. Or it's not supposed to be for most
decent human beings. What we should be doing is
being inclusive - not saying - "Asians go home"
and so forth. Which is what Pauline Hanson does.
She spreads hatred and exclusion. And that's not
patriotism - not the country of the "fair Go."
that I grew up in.

It is easy to confuse patriotism and nationalism. A true patriot is a person who values their nations heritage and beliefs, and is willing to stand up for, and if necessary defend that which they hold dear. A nationalist is an extremists who demands regimented conformity from all, and those who do not conform are to be mistrusted, despised, hated, and even persecuted.

George Orwell, described nationalism as ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature, and allows for the respect of others with a differing heritage and culture. Nationalism can be extremely aggressive, both within a society and externally. A Nationalists makes no allowance for ethnic or cultural differences, and promotes his own culture as being superior to the exclusion of all others.
"Nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace."

"Asians go home"
Foxy,
Any chance you could go & look around Cabramatta, haven't had an update from there for a while. Actually, you would be very close to Liverpool & Bankstown so you could include a report from there.
I never see caucasions congregate in enclaves in free countries, so why do think non-europeans have enclaves wherever they settle ?

Paul. "It is easy to confuse patriotism and nationalism. A true patriot is a person who values their nations heritage and beliefs, and is willing to stand up for, and if necessary defend that which they hold dear".

So true Pall. If you were to drop an observer into the post war Oz of 1960 they would have found a homogeneous nation, despite all the "wogs" we had absorbed. One to be proud of & engendering patriotism in the extreme. It wore it's heritage like a badge of honour

Drop that same observer into the Oz of today, & they would not believe it was the same place. Post Democrats, far left Labor idiots like Grassby & Whitlam, & post the Greens, & they would find a cesspit of grasping ethnics, all wanting to rip off their neighbour. Certainly nothing to engender feelings of patriotism in anyone, & totally devoid of any heritage, or values.

Thanks lefties.

Dear individual,

All communities have their own enclaves.
Including Aussies when they travel overseas.
That's only normal - to feel more at home
amongst your own. Particularly when you're
not always welcomed or included in the
mainstream community of the country in which
you live. If you're made to still feel like
a "foreigner" after decades of living in the
country - is it any wonder that you seek
friends and relationships where you are
made to feel welcome. If you push people away
you can't blame them for finding other "enclaves,"
where they do fit in.

If you push people away you can't blame them for finding other "enclaves," where they do fit in.
Foxy,
By pushing them away I trust you include enclave dwellers who openly proclaim they want to wipe us off the face of the planet ? Or those enclaves with signs that state 'we speak english' in just about the centre of our largest cities!
Or people who only left their countries to obey some medieval call to spread evil.
Of course such people tend to get pushed away, what else would you expect ?
Tell you what Foxy, try & do in their countries what they do here. There's only one place that I know of that tolerates the worst of the uncivilised bogans from Australia & that is in Bali, Indonesia.
I say hats off to them for their amazing tolerance.

As we head to the next election, one that will return Labor to government we may well watch one notion,if its results mirror its last two runs it will suffer greatly,that in my view will be the best out come for this country,however the incoming government will not control the upper house no matter who wins,it may well be an even more splintered house,subject to deals few of us want,if we want better politicians we must first get better voters ones who refuse to buy they are all the same, who get involved and demand better, even be that better,one notion can not ever run in such a race, the Ambulance will beat it home every time

Dear individual,

I'm sorry but I don't know people like you describe.
The people that I've come across (and working in a
large network of regional public libraries) I've
come across all sorts of people. All of them
very personable and friendly.

large network of regional public libraries)
Foxy,
Yeah well, I suppose librarians & those who frequent libraries aren't exactly everday working people struggling to make ends meet. You should spend time in a Centrelink office or a factory or any essential service but deemed menial activity workplace controlled by bureaucrats who sponge as much as they possibly can without risking jail.
Let me tell you the worst of the really bad always & I mean always, turned out to be vehemment defenders of Labor & condemning anything that would requrie them to show some responsibility, compassion & integrity. It's because of these people that One Nation was created to counter the rorting yet the Left is hell-bent on not changing the situation. It's very clear to see why.

Foxy - Sorry for taking so long to reply-

*Your comments indicate you may have missed the point.

*You restated the point I was making - when you said (from Wednesday, 6 June 2018 10:46:53 AM) that the - view of the countries in the creation of the UN (and the League Of Nations) was based on "peace process is" by using the "international community" to restrain "conflict among (or more accurately between - but not within) its member" countries.

"My point" - The UN should stick to its brief. My view is That the UN should create rules "between" but "not within" countries. It's going beyond its mandate. The UN Hate Speech Laws - are interfering with the internal affairs of countries.

Perhaps the influence of Jewish lobbying in the UN creation caused the foray into internal sovereignty.

I mentioned the alt-left - Rabbit please find link "altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/"

More to follow later..

I am not fragile, can take it so if you want to throw rocks at me do it, but how do I talk to individual? his view of a leftist public service is? well not even close to true in my view, the thought those who are, can turn elections? like some thing from Monty Python! all my life it has been true that voters, from any class or back ground, vote as they wish, have stood opposite the poorest person in town, a mate, while I handed out my ALP how to vote he had his NATIONALS he now has one notion, and in effect helps them take primary votes from his lifelong party, as the Greens do to mine

Belly,
You will understand once you start caring about about our society's future.

Dear individual,

You're merely quoting slogans and talking about
something you know nothing about. Firstly, the
migrants that I know have worked hard hard all
of their lives, raised their families, and
asked for nothing from the government. As far as
I know - they still do precisely that. If you were
to actually visit CentreLink - it may surprise you
to see the people that do frequent those offices.
They are a rather broad mix. What I find rather
strange is your very narrow view of who made this
country great. And continue to do so. Perhaps you need
to get out more.

Waste of effort but will try indy my heart would not let me ever stop considering our country, all those who live in it ,and wanting better, truly honestly put my faith in the young to achieve the things you and I failed to I truly, am proud my views are very very different than yours

Foxy,
Can you define where Pauline said "Asians go home", as you claim.

You may recall, I have found you out previously for misrepresentation.

//Can you define where Pauline said "Asians go home", as you claim.//

I believe what she technically said was 'People called Asians, they go the house.'

But it's the meaning that counts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqXT9k-050

Dear Banjo,

I don't recall your claim that you ever pulled me up for
misrepresentation. What I recall is your attempt to do
so - and taking what I said out of context. As Toni L.
has pointed out - it's the meaning that counts -
not how you twist it.

BTW - in this case what Ms Hanson said in her maiden
speech to Parliament was :

"...I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.
Between 1984 and 1995 - 40% of all migrants coming into
this country were of Asian origin. They have their own
culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate..."

"If I can invite whom I want into my home, than I should
have the right to have a say who comes into my country..."

The meaning is quite clear.

In her maiden speech she targeted Asians. Today it's
the Islamic population. Tomorrow it will be someone else.
Whatever is in fashion.

Foxy,
I accept what you say Pauline said in her maiden speech. But I have previously caught you out on misrepresentation and I still have your post if needed. At the time you claimed that Australia was racist and put forward some things as 'proof', and your proof was twisted and incorrect.

However I cannot see where Pauline has said "Asians go home" and it appears that is a misquote by you. Which, if so, you should retract in fairness. If one quotes someone else it should be right and figures quoted should also be right, otherwise it is a lie.

If I recall correctly the ONE Nation immigration policy has been To allow the same number of incoming as what departed the previous year.
It is called Zero Net Immigration.

I doubt if that has changed significantly in recent times.My own view is that we bring about the reduction by not allowing those groups that have shown they will not integrate and hold our society in contempt.

Dear Banjo,

I have no interest in covering the same ground
with you again.

I have explained my meaning to you, regarding
Senator Hanson's stance - given you the appropriate
quotes. How you chose to interpret them is up to you.

Foxy,
Good, so all here can see that you consider it acceptable to misquote and lie about what somebody says. Guess we will see more of that from you in future. Good reputation to have.

I can remember reading in the paper that Pauline Hanson said when first elected that she would represent white people. It is a parliamentarian's duty to represent all of the people in the electorate whether they voted for the politician or not. A politician who states she will represent part of the electorate is unfit for office.

david f,
Do you believe all that you read in papers? Suggest you may find that incorrect also. Lots have been simply made up about Pauline, as Foxy has demonstrated with her fictional quote of 'Asians go home'.

david f,

Was it something you read, of was it in your imagination? I don't remember her saying any such thing; if she did, we would still be hearing about. It is impossible to believe that the Left bigots would not still be harping on it.

I see that AcidReflux is still in denial about the blatant anti-Semite he dragged out without checking up on his attitude to Jews. It's interesting how off the planet these people get when they are desperate.

Belly, to answer your original question.

If One Nation remains a "personality based party", that being very much the singular beliefs of Pauline Hanson, then I would say it is doomed to wither and die. Possibly not as spectacular as did PUP, better known as the Big Clive Party, as sure as Big Clive crashed and burned, so did his party. One Nation is in danger of the same outcome as PUP, the signs are there, again

In response to Foxy's comment "Firstly, the migrants that I know have worked hard hard all of their lives, raised their families, and
asked for nothing from the government."

*Comment - Whether they work hard or not is irrelevant. Its the Australian peoples democratic right to say who comes into the country. They may do so on the basis of perceived cultural fit or any other reason. They may even choose to let people in on the basis of hard work. The socs and caps are hijacking the issue and demonizing the Australian public for their own profit.

In a democracy the people do not have to justify their vote / mandate.

If you want to influence the people to vote for you - you need to convince them - usually by appealing to their own self interest. That doesn't mean that you can use tricky arguments to win - because the public are usually intelligent enough to know in their "heart" when they are being conned - even if they are unable in their "mind" to refute an argument. (Hearts and Minds)

The socs and caps have created a straw devil (the concept of the "racist") and used this to circumvent democracy. At this stage people have become afraid to even think about challenging the "racist" straw man concept. If you can label a person as bad or evil it gives you the ability to ignore them, to attack them, to goal them. As Aristotle said government by law has the potential to be the best form of government - as it isn't arbitrary - it is objective - based on the written word.

We are stretching it a bit, claiming the Australian people have the right to say who comes may be emotional but it is not near true, REMEMBER today we are a country that see,s children and grand children of migrants that built us, right here right now,look at the world, see if you will, [that can not be assured], migration is here to stay.

The public of the world are caught in an internecine "global" geopolitical battle between the socs and caps. There are a few other global players such as India and China. The ALT movement is for "local" people and that's why it's so important for democracy.

A few of us are trying to bring government back to the people so they can control their own environment - so they can build their own house with limited regulation, they can solve problems in their towns and cities, they can tell their governments how they want to fit into the world framework, they can work with the neighboring countries, and they can create a better world in their own image.

We believe that family, and culture (the Australian Culture) is natural and primary.

Democracy is "bottom up" not "top down"

We hope you'll be part of our story.

Belly said "We are stretching it a bit, claiming the Australian people have the right to say who comes may be emotional but it is not near true"

*Our point - So Belly appears to be saying that Australian peoples views are not primary. Belly can be forgiven for repeating a view common in the media and elsewhere especially in globalist socs and caps circles.

They don't actually believe in democracy - The socs and caps just "want what they want" - an opinion based on arbitrariness - let the kangaroos hop around the paddock - thump their tails on the ground - we can feed them and take care of them, find some use for them... but don't let them into positions of power.

CM,

I don't know about you, but I say that all these statements about 'hardworking immigrants’ who have 'contributed’ and slaved away for Australia are completely vacuous; they have not done any more for Australia than anyone else - in fact they have done less, as the hard yards were already done by my ancestors and original settlers. Too many of the newcomers are on welfare when they haven't done a lick for Australia, or put in a cent.

And, while I agree that we should have the right to decide who comes here, we obviously do not, according to the current political class with its mass immigration (both parties). Even John Howard, who was the only politician to say that we will decide who comes here, kicked off the current absurd mass immigration of people from Third World countries - and those same immigrants cost him his own seat.

Sadly, democracy is top down these days - if what we have now can be called democracy.

Belly,
Where ever did you get the idea that we (Australia) cannot say who comes here and how many. I know the ALP reckoned that we could not stop the boats but Abbott and Morison showed the ALP wrong. We certainly can say who comes and goes and we can use our defense forces to ensure that if need be. We can simply not issue visas to those we do not like for whatever reason and, hey presto, they do not gain entry.

I am sure that the LNP would love you to take your theory to the election or will the ALP do a Rudd and say one thing before the election and then open slather after. Rest assured, we have the power.

Here's a really nonsensical comment about immigrants from Jennine Khalik writing as a “specialist reporter” for ABC Online. She describes a group of young people in Middle Eastern 'shisha’ cafe (presumably a representation of such a thing and not actually in the Middle East) blowing clouds of “mint flavoured” smoke about.

The nonsense is this: Khalik says that they could “pass for ANY GROUP OF FRIENDS”. Oh, yeah: how many people suck on hookahs and pass the stem around unhygienically?

And, what about the rules on smoking in cafes?

The point of the article - they are trying to escape Islam (but not the filthy hookah habit) is not the one that attracted me; it's the impression that we are supposed to believe that these aliens are just good old Aussies like the rest of us, even though they manage to slip in the hackneyed rot about “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim bigotry” - ignoring the fact that they are the ones trying to escape the very thing that encourages people to be anti-Islam.

*Further to previous discussion - related to Foxy's points.

UN can offer leadership on issues (soft power, see Joseph Nye) but not tyranize (hard power) the countries populations. Sovereignty need to take responsibility for laws that they make.

With nuclear power there is always going to be a power imbalance. All nuclear powers have UN veto power or will soon with the possible exception of North Korea. If Korea and China vote as a block it could change the power structure in the UN - dangerous dominoes - but funny.

Its mandate was fairly arbitrary in the first place - this arbitrary law was the main objection to the British in the US Declaration of Independence. Its an excuse for governments to adopt policies without accountability. Implementing Taylorism (gears in a machine - free flow / free market of business costs - labour, money, resources) and Trotskyism (culture is the wedge that enables the employer to enslave them as they are divided from their comrades in other countries - Cultural Revolution in China).
The governments of countries can say its not our fault it's the UN. But the UN (especially the veto powers) is made up of the left or right governments (the socs and caps) of the world - they both have the same agenda- they're the same people. There needs to been a movement to ALT governments in the world to save it - in Australia that means voting for no / low immigration independents in the senate - such as Pauline Hanson - and punishing them harshly if they betray their stand. And weeding out the dominant parties - in favour of a more sophisticated understanding of the world - "Bellum omnium contra omnes" rather than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Few want business in a free market - once their salable commodities are commoditized - they're devalued - whether you are selling labour, loaning money, or selling resources. If you decrease the value of money - example by creating bitcoin - you increase supply over demand - increasing the value of labour and resources. Alternatives to a resource - decrease its value - by increasing market supply - increasing money/ labour. Public utilities are business apotheoses due to insulation from commoditization.

If "businesses insulate why shouldn't people" insulate and protect ourselves from commoditization by protecting our land.

An increasing population of the world and the value of land increases exponentially. Maltusian perspective interesting here - Food produced arithmetically - population produced geometrically: Scarce land implies prices somewhat geometrically with population increases:

"Exponentials piled upon exponentials..."

The best way to take advantage of land resources by renting not selling it, it's more valuable than anything we could buy with it. This wasn't always the case when the world population was lower - especially due to the industrial revolution. Otherwise the population that breeds the fastest is the one that gets the stuff.

In this scenario the bad actors get rewarded.

We're importing irresponsible breeding cultures. People that support this are expanding environmental damage, poverty, and concentrating power in the world.

We think we are helping the poor of the world by importing economic immigrants but most of the immigrants are from relatively rich families.

Property increases, accompanied by stagnation as productivity per unit area will decrease. Commodities such as food sold on the world market will be sold at world prices but there will be less work because of bigger factories.

"Rich" individuals in rich countries are "buying money" with their support / promotion of immigration - "they get rich we pay" and though we're in a rich country we don't benefit that much.

In our isolated protected past - transport improved - if we are to protect ourselves we need to do it "actively" or be "overrun".

We have democratic "power" of the law if we "act".

Canem Malum wrote: "We're importing irresponsible breeding cultures. People that support this are expanding environmental damage, poverty, and concentrating power in the world."

That is true. However, the countries with irresponsible breeding cultures will continue to export human beings from their overcrowded lands. By supporting education for women and population planning including sex education, contraception and access to abortion clinics Australia can help relieve the pressure for immigration from those countries.

I'm not sure that big-breeding Muslims are keen on abortion, david f. Evidence shows that Muslims have no intention of changing their ways. It is us they want to change, not themselves: this is the whole point of immigration to the West. And the West is paying for them to do it via welfare and family payments. Anyone who knows anything about Islam (and you are clearly not one of those people) is aware that Muslims intend to conquer us 'by our own hand’. So far, we have been obliging them well beyond expectations.

We have dangerously undermined free thought, free speech, equality before the law and the right to a fair trial: “western” values that would not long ago have been considered sacrosanct. If all of a sudden we have a chilly sense of our civilisation under threat, the fault is largely our own.

We continue to commit sucide by mass immigration.

"Australian's are so smart" they're letting the government give their inheritance away.

"White Australia Policy - a demonized term" - "what I think - is this valid" - "what I hear - is the dim / dumb thud" of jumping on the band wagon. Didn't your parents tell you "don't believe everything you see on TV". Someone said "most people rationalize by analogy - when creating new paradigms it's important to go back to first principles to Physics". Ranting 60 year old socialist / capitalist propaganda isn't going to get you far.

I "haven't heard many valid" arguments against the White Australia Policy - I'll have a read and see. Many countries are substantively monocultures - Socs and Caps promote western multiculturalism, because it's to their advantage. If someone promotes something - with sparse evidence - you can usually say that the reason is they are conning someone.

We probably need to review citizenship for children born of foreign born parents, foreign born may need to be resettled to their birthplace. Due to the burgeoning skilled immigrant cohort, we may need to average down refugee numbers, and given the number of world refugees it may not be sustainable to accept refugees at all. In future culture wars people who have previously bet on certain outcomes will suffer somewhat - as with Desmond Tutu (justice or peace) there are hard decisions (do we want peace or destruction). I'm referring to people that have spouses and family members from other cultures - there may be restrictions on family reunions. The earlier we start the less the impact.

This isn't cultural superiority, or hate, but to fix "cultural hijack".

But what would you expect if you tried to "reverse ninety thousand years of natural culture" (since we came out of Africa) - "in fifty years".

Culture is as important as family - every family should have their own home - every culture should have their own country.

The smart like to do things, the wise understand they shouldn't.

We can't always improve on nature.

Are you suggesting that we ship back all people
with British ancestors who came here and took
over this land from the Indigenous people?
How would that work?

ttbn,

In our society the main opposition to abortion comes from the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestants. At the Cairo Population Conference the Catholic Church joined with the Islamists. In return for the Islamist opposition to abortion the Catholic Church agreed not to support education for women. The Catholic Church, Islamists and fundamentalist Protestants all oppose sensible population policies.

cont'd ...

I forgot to mention that regarding the "White Australia"
policy - our history books once told us that "The First
Fleet arrived. It brought 1000 English convicts." It
didn't. It brought 1000 convicts but probably they came
from a dozen different countries. As somebody put it -
"English jails were no respecters pf nationality."

The first Italian arrived on January 26th, 1788 -
Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from South Africa, there
were people from Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from
Portugal, from Hungary. So when people say, "Do you believe
Australia should become a multi-racial society?"
The reply should be, "It doesn't matter what I think. I can
tell you what it is - which is a society of tremendous
diversity." In some schools, 90 % of the students speak
a language other than English as their first language.
Now schools take this into account and foreign languages have
become part of the curriculum. Most people who are now a
part of this lovely country of ours are delighted to
belong, to be accepted. It means a great deal to them to
become citizens of a free and prosperous country.

Australia is a happier land than most others.

Banjo, yes OK in your way we know voters can and have, said stop the boats, want to bet they will say stop the Muslims? in the future they may well, in fact that truth holds within it this truth, the ALP will not ever dare or want to change the stop the boats policy,they know about that informal power,this migration problem is not however anti Muslim , it is anti many including South African people.we DARE not talk here about it in depth, for fear of damaging this forum, but if a majority truly held such deep fears why has one notions vote fallen?

Canem Malum,
"All nuclear powers have UN veto power or will soon with the possible exception of North Korea."
What makes you think India, Pakistan and Israel will soon have veto power?
Or had you forgotten they have nukes?

david f,

Are you seriously asking me to believe that Muslims are only anti-abortion because they were got at by the Catholics?

ttbn,

Believe what you will.

Aborigines in Australia and the Americas didn't have the weaponry to keep the European peoples with their superstitions out of their territory. They had their own superstitions. They didn't need those of the Europeans.

david f,

“Believe what you will”.

Now there's a cop-out! I suppose that's what has to happen when you invent things.

ttbn,

I invented nothing. You apparently reject any information which conflicts with your prejudices.

Belly,
You claimed that we do not have the power to stop or reduce immigration and now you change the subject. But we do have the power to determine the immigration rate and who we admit and it is a formal soverign power.

You know very well that the two major parties have an agreement NOT to discuss or debate immigration and thus it is never an election issue, that is the simple fact as to why the issue does not get more media attention. People are concerned but the major parties determine what is debated in election and the media go along with that because the major parties are the big spenders with advertising.

On top of that the majors buy the votes with lollies and have the electorate dumbded down to the extent that most think sport is more important than the countries future.

Big business wants high immigration for obvious reasons and donate large sums to both major parties to ensure the agreement is kept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

The United Nations Security Council veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members. The expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in December 1939, following its November 1939 attack on Finland soon after the outbreak of World War II, was just one of many events in the League's long history of incomplete membership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_the_United_Nations

India has been seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council ...
India makes a number of claims to justify its demand.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-offers-to-give-up-veto-power-temporarily-at-un-security-council-1667565

India Ready To Let Go Of Veto Initially For UN Security Council Seat

Aidan

This post was part of discussion going back to
Wednesday, 6 June 2018 7:48:57 AM and comments by Foxy and others.

*The basic point -

The UN should not interfere in the internal activities of countries.
UN Hate Laws are an example of a case where the UN interferes in countries internal affairs.

* Background

The UN and the League Of Nations were founded by the winners of the world wars (the great powers) to prevent war.

Nuclear Weapons are a symbol of great power status and NNPT, ABMTBT are UN arrangements to control arms race conditions in the modern world.

The UN should focus on disputes between the great powers and controlling the arms race.

There is some pressure for structural change with the veto system due to the arms race by new great powers.

One of the arguments for structural change is India's 2nd largest population status (soon to be first).

* Potential solutions

There is a subtext that if there were no cultures then using military force is superfluous - many believe that this is the wrong strategy and also increases conflict.

There need to be "clear formal lines" that if they are crossed by any member then all of the members act together against the bad player to ensure security.

Great powers want influence if you give them influence within their region this may be a stable structure.

So one possibility is to divide the world into regions with one great power to each - to some extent this has already occurred naturally in APEC, EU, etc.

* Some of the above is open to debate. Our view (the view of the ALT movement) is the burden of global security is born by the bottom of the structure in a cultural solution and doesn't really fix the population issue or the ones with the weapons

Missed some thing? so Hanson sits in the UN now?Uninformed Nitwit that is

Tread seems to have run its race here and so be it we however are much more than likely to revisit it in the near future two recent elections results seem to confirm my view this party is in a death roll, but almost sure we will have a federal election in spring and no better chance exists for Hanson and the party she has legally made her own, to be judged, my view? if you are conservative vote for them, not another waste paper basket splinter party

Hi Belly - Thanks for your feedback. The UN part was related to discussion about Hate Crimes of which Pauline Hanson has been accused. Sometimes I wish I didn't but I can understand if you're not familiar with the basics of UN history.

Dear Belly,

We need to understand the challenge Hanson poses to
public life in this country. Is she a party of
policy or just protest? I'd say - just protest.
If you look at her supporters they are basically
people who yearn for the "gold old days", they're
extremely nostalgic, they display an unusual gloom,
and share a vehemently anti-government stance.
They're people who don't have confidence in the
government. They see the quick turnover in leaders.
They see scandals to do with expenses, and so on.
They become very jaded.

Then of course we've had a lack of decisive leadership
as well. I think that most of the Hanson supporters could
be falling in with her simply because they're disenchanted with
the political system.

However she's a puzzle with serious consequences -
Whether she's capable of lasting - only time will tell.
Who knows. That's politics.

Calum read all your posts, some times a bit long, please do not take it for granted I am not interested, or that I have trouble understanding,Foxy! well my education as you know came after formal schooling, consumed enough books to fill your Library, maybe,I FEAR the very right, and the very left,I fear apathy, that view that politicians are all the same and we should not bother about politics,too fear a deliberate dumbing down of voters so they no longer care about others Hanson in my view is some thing to fear not embrace

Dear Belly,

Her support base has lost many. She's only got two
votes left in the Senate - so her power bloc has
been diminished. Not sure how long she'll continue
to last - but as I stated earlier - she's not a party
with policies - she's simply one of protest.
And her supporters fall in with her simply because they're
disenchanted with the political system. One Nation is a
party of old people - who don't have confidence in the
government. They're profoundly nostalgic for the "good
old days," they display an unusual gloom and share
a vehemently anti-government stance. They see the quick
turnover in leaders and they see scandals to do with
expenses, and so on. Of course - we've also had a lack of
decisive leadership. Lets not forget that her party
is almost entirely native-born Australians. Not even
newcomers from the UK or New Zealand are drawn to her party.
A typical One Nation supporter is - working class - who
didn't finish school.

Foxy agree, however she too is a product of the *politics is boring mob, and the they are all the same group* her first target was Asians, if we suddenly had an influx of say Americans, and she saw a chance she would chant mindless hate at them,in the end she harms Conservative senate votes, but votes with them? I fail to see what her followers see in her within our two party system the two sides have ample room for the minor party's who prosper only because our senate lets them

Dear Belly,

Pauline Hanson doesn't get her facts right.
In her maiden-speech she targeted Asians.
Now it's the Islamic population. She goes with
whatever is in fashion at the moment. Here's a
link that explains:

http://www.sbs.com.aunews/the-feed/10-times-pauline-hanson-got-the-facts-wrong-in-her-maiden-speech

Little doubt exists she has started the trip out of favor and office some may disagree but an election of both houses is more than likely before her six year term is up

Dear Belly,

I just realised that my earlier link doesn't work due
to a typo. Here it is again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/10-times-pauline-hanson-got-the-facts-wrong-in-her-maiden-speech

I can't understand why anybody would vote for this woman -
when she votes with the Liberal Party most of the time anyway.

Dear Foxy,

You wonder why anyone would vote for Hanson?

Sometimes good acts have unintended consequences. In 1952 the US Supreme Court outlawed segregation in the public schools on the grounds that segregated schools were unequal. I think that was a very good decision. However, in reaction to this, fundamentalist and bigoted Christians withdrew their children from the public schools and established private schools so their children would not have to mix with blacks. Unfortunately, these children were not only isolated from blacks but also from less bigoted white children. I feel that these private schools were in the background of many Trump voters.
Look back in Australian history and possibly you will find a reason for the Hanson voters.

Desperate times require desperate solutions.

Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood begins with the quote: “In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”

;)

"In a land where freedom is a memory, and justice is outlawed, the just must become outlaws". Zorro

:P

Dear David F.,

I know why Pauline Hanson attracted support.
She is tapping into the prevailing political
distrust in career politicians - and those
people who yearn for the "good old days."
She at her most potent when she can play the
belittled "victim" against the out of touch
prejudices of the inner city "elites."

To give her the oxygen of publicity is essential
to her survival.

The clue in dealing with One Nation is in its policies.
In other words, facts. - not generalised blame and
grievance, but facts that allow the disillusioned voters
she claims to represent on whether her ideal world would
help or hinder their lives. As with her "let parents decide,"
foray into vaccination policy - the evidence revealed her
ideas to be retrograde. With her factual scrutiny is what
needs to be done.

Canem Malum,

If we want to move forward as a free, fair, and vibrant
society - I have no doubt that we can find the solutions
that suit us, provided we do not succumb to the siren calls
of demagogues, charlatans, and ideologues.

I have more faith in my fellow Australians than some, Hanson built her castle on fears and even hate of the lesser informed voters who think this country can not, like the rest of the world,be every bit as good as it has been and take in other races,yes some have been a mistake, individuals not whole race/faiths, Hanson can deliver nothing, she fails to even hold her party together and that is the truth

Dear Belly,

Hanson still plays on her image as an underdog.
In her maiden speech she declared herself as an
unpolished politician, a woman who'd had her
share of life's knocks. But she's now a very
wealthy woman. She's owned and managed mutliple
properties and still votes fairly consistently
against the most under-privileged in society.
She really wants to be part of the main-stream
of politics. Her party votes fairly consistently
with the government on major issues.

It's a pity that her die-hard followers haven't
noted that her party is an opportunistic platform
strictly foe her own benefit.

How have we allowed so much time and political
oxygen to be wasted on her?

Well said Foxy but just what do her supporters think she can deliver?almost every time she votes for the party she came from Liberals

Dear Belly,

I don't think her "die-hard" followers stop to think.
They follow her blindly - which is sad for them.

BTW: Did you watch Mr Shorten on "Q and A" last night?

I thought he did very well.

It will be interesting to see if Mr Turnbull will accept
the invitation to appear on the show and answer questions
from the audience - like Mr Shorten did?

Agree Foxy, yes saw Bill, the one I knew and worked for, not sure why he has such low personal polling but that Bill on that program is the one I know we will get after the election as PM.
First super Saturday them spring election

Dear Belly,

He answered each question - did not give us the usual
spin along party lines. It was refreshing to have a
person be so up-front with everything. Most impressive.

We could probably all learn from a person who sticks to the topic.

Canem Malum,

Not only sticks to the topic but makes us think
and does not present us with short-sighted
assumptions, and vague, sweeping, generalisations
or talks in slogans. And in politics that's rare.

Well while the question is can one nation survive, the coming election will ask,and answer, can a focus on Labors leader get voters to over look just how bad this government has been?before my spell from these pages I thought and said Turnbull would be just as hard for Labor to remove as Howard, how wrong I was! this time the half senate election, in that half baked house that is the only reason Hanson has any power,I suspect even more minority type party victory's, because quite frankly, far too many want far better from the big two, maybe far more than any one in power can deliver

The tax bill for not putting GST on tampons has successfully
passed in the Senate.

It's interesting that Pauline Hanson did not support
this bill. She apparrently thought it fair to have a
tax on essentials like tampons and pads (after all it's
only women who use them - right?) And women are the
majority of her supporters - are you taking this in ladies?

Whereas men don't pay tax on condoms or viagra - they're
considered essential health items.

Very much aware a supporter of one notion, mate of near 40 years is here on this site, reading my words in this thread, hostility is no answer for us the truth will have to do, no matter what any one thinks of Hanson, and in her first high visibility run, she said things many agreed with, she can after recent debacles never progress, a election right now, of both houses, may see her as the only member of her Hanson pty ltd party, it is her party, recent legal changes made that clear,its ashes will by laid aside those of the DLP DEMOCRATS, PUP, and a host of as yet unknown small party's unable to change voters intention to vote for the majors

Dear Belly,

I certainly hope that you're right.

Foxy said- "The tax bill for not putting GST on tampons has successfully passed in the Senate. It's interesting that Pauline Hanson did not support this bill. She apparrently thought it fair to have a tax on essentials like tampons and pads (after all it's
only women who use them - right?) And women are the majority of her supporters - are you taking this in ladies? Whereas men don't pay tax on condoms or viagra - they're considered essential health items."

Answer- I thought most right wing politicians support the view that GST should apply to everything in order to simplify the system. That was the view of John Howard it was only the intervention of Meg Lees- Leader of the Democrats that created the "no GST on essentials" policy. This would imply that Pauline Hanson probably wouldn't support Condoms or Viagra either as part of the scheme.

"Pauline Hanson (with many others in parliament) is not against women she's against chaos".

Sometimes a little chaos is necessary- she made a judgement call.

I'm sure given that you are a well read person you would be aware of this fact but are just using this to support your argument. If you want your arguments to have integrity it's important to give credit where due- you don't have to like them or trust them.

'she's against chaos!" The Lovely Pauline does a good job of creating enough chaos in the Parliament. Why is she against it?

Former, as of yesterday, One Nation dingo Brian Burston, has quit the party and, wait for it, has joined Crazy Clive's non existent UAP. The blokes a joke!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-18/brian-burston-will-run-for-clive-palmers-party-next-election/9879984

In the above link you may see a pair of stunned mullets, aka Crazy Clive and Dingo Brian.

History yet to be written will shake its head in wounder at our Pauline Hanson, if it is truly written it will say she, some times,mirrored a fear some held about the changing nature of our country bought about by migration/refugees, it must if true, tell of the first crash and burn life of that party, then its second incarnation, and its impending death, have we seen the party reported its self [SMH today] for its NSW branch being run by remote control? ample room exists in the coalition, for those who support her to be heard, in fact she almost all the time, votes with her former party, may yet do so in relation to the tax cuts,her supporters if they are determined to vote for her should put the ballot once filled in, in the rubbish tin at the door, Australia is better than this party

Canem Malum,

What a lot of BS.

So Ms Hanson can make a judgement call but if I do I
lose my integrity? Well, here's another judgement
call Sir - you sound like her supporter - and excuser.
I'm merely stating the facts of what she did not do -
and that's support other women's rights. And she's
supposed to be for the underdog. So we have a right
to judge her by her actions. If you stand for something
then your actions should back that up!

Seems if you are not winning the argument bruise the poster still lives here,each of us can and should have an opinion,94 percent of Australians do not give first preference to one notion, seems clear to me

Dear Belly,

She certainly has problems keeping staff as well.
Very similar to Trump in that regard.

Yes her self confidence is badly miss placed, and at six percent her vote has only one way to go, and it is not up

Another one! elected to serve one notion another defector joins another party, can this continue? is it right? are voters upset at sending yet another person to a party they never voted for? the mad hatters tea party that one notion is can not survive forever as a stepping stone for other partys

Foxy- I'm not judging whether you have integrity or not I was judging myself. But feel free to judge yourself if you feel it's approapriate.

Judge? well yes I am prepared to judge, six percent of us vote one notion, over 20 have left/joined another party/or been removed, it is my judgment those who still vote for them need to think about why they do so

Canem Malum,

I was making my own judgement call on Ms Hanson's
actions. You excused her behaviour and stated
that she merely made a
"judgement" call. No. she did much more than that.
She's a senator and her actions on this bill did
not match her supposed values.

As for what you stand for? That was not the issue here.

Hanson is likely to support tax cuts, SMH this morning, so another back flip? seems the party you vote for when you want to elect a member to yet another party is once again voting with yet another party