Dear Paul,

«The nonsense put forward by the non producing parasites from that money grabbing rubbish Bitcoin.»

Thank you for alerting me, it stinks.

Apparently, this is the den from where the founders of Flux emerged, who foolishly admire technology in general and the bitcoin in particular.

Yet what is important is the concept, which is to let ordinary people vote semi-directly over policies and includes their/our ability to horse-trade: technology is only the means and I would be just as happy if the software was central and produced by the Australian Greens.

Paul. WTF are you on?
I think you've just added about a dozen topics to my post.
I have no idea what your saying.
All I'm saying is that this FLUX form of govt is more like MY ideal of what govt should be about.
I much rather the pollies refer back to us with the bills, and we (the people) get to vote on the issues.
THEY, simply tally up OUR votes and HE votes accordingly.
Now WTF is so hard about that, that you have to have a dummy spit over?
My way, those who WANT to vote for day-to-day laws, CAN and will have their wishes heard.
The OTHERS, who don't give a toss, who only vote because they are forced to, can get stuffed and go back and watch the 'footy' with their carton of beer, for all the good they are anyway.
So yes, if you actually cared about your life and what is going on around you, you might actually give a stuff, and this FLUX method gets your vote into the chamber, unlike now, your vote is worthless and just gives the scumbags and their mates ALL the power.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I do, and I'll attempt to clarify.
Paul, the current system is sh!t and you know it.
The FLUX system, or at least my system allows the people to vote on every issue that they want to vote on, and to suite them.
Majority still wins but at least it will be a TRUE majority and none of this 'party line' crap.

Toni,

"But I guess it's alright when it's the left-footers doing it rather than those smelly black people, eh Is Mise?"

Not applicable as Canon Law is neither condoned nor applied by the Australian Courts, but if you think that your observation adds to the case against their being only one law in Australia, then welcome aboard.

Just as an aside, none of my Aboriginal friends are smelly; have you got your nose a bit too close to your armpit, by chance?

//Not applicable as Canon Law is neither condoned nor applied by the Australian Courts//

If a law is applied and condoned by the Australian Courts, it's part of Australian law.

I don't know if you were attempting to argue against your own initial position, but great job, QED.

Dear Toni,

«I don't know if you were attempting to argue against your own initial position, but great job, QED.»

You are dangerously obsessed with facts: the regime's ideology has been and still remains, that there is one law for all, no matter what you find to the contrary: they have all the guns, so they call the shots and if you disagree then they will shoot you in the head because your brain is the only organ which they don't need for transplants to party-members.

The point of the legal exemptions afforded the religious schools is not intended or used to fire teachers or expel pupils based on gender identity, rather to protect them from some of the more stupid brain farts of the far left such as the safe schools indoctrination or...

"Mr Wilson says the removal of the exemption to section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act could expose schools to an allegation of “direct discrimination” simply for upholding gender as being determined by biology or promoting to students a biblical view of ­sexuality.

“Prime Minister, you will know that gender distinction, and the ­binary nature of gender, is a foundational precept of the belief and teaching of Christian faith,” Mr Wilson says. “Currently, an exemption exists for our Christian and church-connected schools to keep distinctions such as: insisting on distinct uniforms for boys and girls, providing separate male and female toilets for comfort and privacy, building separate accommodation quarters (for boarding schools) and having distinct boys and girls sporting teams.

“The removal of the exemption clause in the act will make it ­possible for a claim of ‘direct ­discrimination’ against such schools … Why is it that the ­government wants to undermine the integrity of our much-loved and valued schools where currently more than 300,000 students across the nation are flourishing?”