Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 20
The Royals and the RelevancePage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

Proud to be Scottish, Proud to be British, Proud to be Blue!!!

As in Blue Balls??.....go figure!!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 21
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:07:27 AM
Oops!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 22
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:16:59 AM
Please please Austrailians vote for Independance and we have you hanging round our coat tails for ever.


Umm we are independent so what is there to vote for?The only ties we have with Pommyland these days are historical.Anyway the Queen is very fond of Australians, she probably likes us more than she likes some of her own Pommy subjects.Actually thats not a bad word to describe a Pommy- a "subject".

 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:30:56 AM

Umm we are independent so what is there to vote for?The only ties we have with Pommyland these days are historical.


Yes, independent if you don't count being ruled by the heirs of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. You do know what a constitutional monarchy is, don't you?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 24
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 3:42:33 PM

We have never been given the vote to do so...

(as most of us would be happy to be rid of the ties too...)


Umm that is what the 1999 referendum was for.A constitutional monarchy ensures that not one person has absolute power and works well.So if it ain't broken don't fix it.The Queen has no influence over Australia politically.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 25
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 5:30:57 AM

That referendum was sabotaged by phil cleary, lets have another 1.
It doesnt work well, people who were born here dont feel any love for the flag or the royals halfway around the world.
Stay in the commonwealth, let someone born here be head of state.


How can a referendum be sabotaged?.The people voted.I was born here and personally I love our flag.The Governor-General is head of State and appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister.Big deal.Oh and by the way our Prime Minister wasn't even born here.Yeah lets change the Constitution so that people can only be Prime Minister if they are Australian by birth.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 26
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:24:14 AM

they dumped you Aussies here as human garbage, used you as cannon fodder in 2 wars... time to wake up.. cut the apron strings ffs.

Thanks for referring to our ancestors as "human garbage". I'm sure a lot of Aussies will really appreciate that.They didn't build a bad country after all.Obviously you weren't born here but flew here.Well if you don't like it fly back.As for the flag stiff cheddar it won't be being changed in the near future.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 27
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:38:00 AM
Im glad the immigrants from the Continent came here and helped build Australia as well.After all they didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 28
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 8:01:28 AM

Im glad the immigrants from the Continent came here and helped build Australia as well.After all they didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country.


I think you've got that the wrong way around. The Brits didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country until the Romans showed them.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 29
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/6/2012 11:08:52 PM

I think you've got that the wrong way around. The Brits didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country until the Romans showed them.



Early toilets that used flowing water to remove the waste are also found at Skara Brae in Orkney, Scotland, which was occupied from about 3100 B.C. until 2500 B.C. Some of the houses there have a drain running directly beneath them, and some of these had a cubicle over the drain. Around the 18th century B.C., toilets started to appear in Minoan Crete; Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs and ancient Persia. In Roman civilization, toilets using flowing water were sometimes part of public bath houses.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet

Now the Romans didn't finally conquer Great Britain until about AD43 (i think). The Brits already had their own dunnies as per the above extract from Wiki.
Anyway the Romans can't be that smart as they used lead pipes for their water and poisoned everyone.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 30
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/7/2012 1:24:09 AM
Its ok if you are one of those anglosphere types. There are always some around.

Btw Wikipedia is not a definite source.


Think the word you are looking for is Anglo-Saxon. Anglosphere means:


The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the Anglosphere as "the group of countries where English is the main native language".[1] The Merriam-Webster dictionary uses the definition: "the countries of the world in which the English language and cultural values predominate


^^^^^^From Wiki. Happy to be of assistance in clarifying this for you.
 foxboroughhottubs
Joined: 7/15/2010
Msg: 31
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/7/2012 2:53:50 AM
Anglophile perhaps ?

Pertaining to a person who has an affection and affectation for all things British

( Not from Wiki .... All that money my dad spent on my education was not in vain )
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 32
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/7/2012 4:27:26 AM

those percantage of wasp americans and anglo aussies, kiwis, and uk people that think the Anglo countries will always be ontop and have a superior culture.


And what would those percentages be? To assist you I can provide the following info:

Percentage of people of either British,Irish,Scottish or Welsh descent living in the countries you mentioned:

USA =45.10%
Australia=69.88%
NZ =73.60%
GB =Couldn't find a statistic.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 33
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/7/2012 6:26:27 AM

and we will take over one day...




Proportionate to the Australian resident population, the most commonly nominated ancestries were:
Italian (4.6%) (2011)


^^^^^^^From Wiki.

At such a low percentage of the Australian population it won't be in the near future.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 34
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/8/2012 5:22:39 PM

kick the plastic german royals out


Firstly I find this comment Non-Sensical when the lineage of Queen Elizabeth 11 is this:


Elizabeth bears lineage from, amongst others, Armenian, Arab, British, Chinese, Cuman, Danish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Monégasque, Norwegian, Old Prussian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Yugoslavian ethnicities.[1]


Now one could call the Royals any form of plastics as you refer.

Secondly your quest for a Republic and a change of the flag appears to be based on Anti-British sentiment.Current polls reveal this:


However, an opinion poll conducted in 2011 saw a sharp decline in the support for an Australian republic. The polling conducted by the Morgan Poll in May 2011 showed the support for the monarchy was now 55% (up 17% since 1999), whereas the support for a republic was at 34% (down 20%).[30] The turnaround in support for a republic has been called the "strange death of Australian republicanism".[31]
A poll taken in the wake of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee found that support for the monarchy is at a twenty-five-year high. 58% of respondents supported the monarchy whereas 35% supported a republic.[32]


And this:


A 2010 Morgan Poll that asked: "Do you think Australia should have a new design for our National Flag?" was supported by 29% of respondents and opposed by 66%, with 5% uncommitted.

^^^^^^^^All from Wikipedia.

In addition the change to a Republic is just a logistical nightmare.So why bother?

As for changing the flag, that would be a nightmare in that what design do we have and what would the majority of Australians favour or vote for.How do we represent Australia via our flag to appease everyone.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:51:26 AM


How do we represent Australia via our flag to appease everyone.

Simple, just drop the 'Union Jack' from the corner...


This might sound like sacrilege, but... it's just a tribal symbol. Do we really need one?
It's like lines on maps. Do we really need them? There's no lines on the ground - it's just made up stuff.
I realise people will think I'm crazy, but it's always seemed to me that these things cause more problems than they solve... so is it possible that we could just make do without them?
 MrsNaamah
Joined: 11/8/2011
Msg: 36
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/12/2012 5:19:01 PM

is it possible that we could just make do without them?

I agree. Flags and colours and the like are just divisive symbols. And a bit boring really. Let's get something lighthearted, like one of those giant inflatable people instead. You know the ones with the air being pumped up through them that makes them dance. It would certainly lighten the mood at a war conference.
 foxboroughhottubs
Joined: 7/15/2010
Msg: 37
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/12/2012 8:15:43 PM
I vote for a Blimp ! everyone loves a good blimp :D
( If it were the GoodYear one ... it also has a cheery message ! )
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 38
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/23/2013 1:46:04 AM
Royal baby royal baby royal baby. Argh! Is it just me going crazy or is all this royal baby talk driving me crazy?

Poor kid, I feel sorry for him. You think your family is bad... imagine having royalty as family. *shudders*
 anita_lay
Joined: 12/19/2012
Msg: 39
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/23/2013 2:44:58 AM
It could be worse. I read recently that the Queen has never run her own bath.
I could get used to this...
 VANEST55
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 40
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 10/13/2014 6:55:28 PM
POSTED BY GINGEROSITY ON 6/8/2012:
"I think you mean 54.87%, and that was with a corrupt system of politicians appointing the president as the alternative."

Electors were ALSO asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum
which asked whether they approved of a proposed law:

'To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble'.

Results of the 1999 referendum: 6 nov 1999 Were as follows:

*Preamble question=60.66% voters nationally said “NO”
Republic question=54.87%voters nationally.said “NO”.

*It is pertinent to point out that 60.66% refused to even consider
changing the constitution So the Republic question (or any other
question) is rendered redundant.

If it is stated that Australia is governed by a corrupt system of politicians
it is incumbent on the accuser to provide evidence of such corruption and
advise the judiciary via the enforcement authority the exact nature of such
corruption.

Fortunately the separation of powers guaranteed by virtue of our constitution
has inbuilt powers to deal with miscreants;the fourth estate always vigilant in
exposing such excesses.

If the system is corrupt effect change via a referendum;the people
could elect their representatives in a parliament that is open to
all;ANARCHISTS INCLUDED.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:30:03 AM
Are you going to request I defend each and every word I've posted on this dating forum, or do you just like this particular word 'corrupt' that I wrote 2 years ago?

If it is stated that Australia is governed by a corrupt system of politicians it is incumbent on the accuser to provide evidence of such corruption and advise the judiciary via the enforcement authority the exact nature of such corruption.

No, it was stated that the proposed alternative of politicians appointing the president would have been a corrupt system. Our current system involves the monarch, acting directly or through the GG, being an independent final arbiter in the event of political crisis. A politically appointed head of state would not be independent of the politicians that appointed them and that they hope will appoint their future preference, and therefore the system would have been corrupt, ab initio.

Fortunately the separation of powers guaranteed by virtue of our constitution has inbuilt powers to deal with miscreants;the fourth estate always vigilant in exposing such excesses

This isn't what I was saying in the passage you quoted, but yes, it does very well at slapping the wrists of the occasional well-publicised travel rorter and completely ignores the massive cons and swindles we all suffer daily.

Hands up who thinks:
That the lobbyist infestation is not deliberately plutocratic and anti-democratic.
That gerrimandering and preference-dealing isn't rife and diminshing the professed ideal of proportional representation.
That fair and balanced reportage is not a fanciful fairy tale.
That the senate seat distribution mandating 12 seats for each state and two for each territory doesn't give people in Tasmania and the Northern Territory a hugely disproportionate say in the affairs of the nation.
That fat mining magnates can't buy themselves a seat because our system is so incorruptible.
That voting every 3 years in an archaic and misleading popularity contest is more 'democratic' than alternatives such as direct mass electronic voting on each proposed policy.
That there is no reason to despair at the thought of living through yet another electoral farce.

If the system is corrupt effect change via a referendum;the people could elect their representatives in a parliament that is open to all;ANARCHISTS INCLUDED.

Effect change via a referendum? Parliament open to all? Haha! How can a sentence be so laughable and so tragic at the same time? lol :(
 VANEST55
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 42
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 10/14/2014 5:06:55 PM
gingerosity on 10/14/2014

'No, it was stated that the proposed alternative of politicians appointing the president would have been a corrupt system'.

Incorrect, inept comments!

Firstly, the inability to grasp the fact that if the constitution was changed to reflect the will of the people
the President would be elected by ALL the elected leaders;in lieu of the Prime Minister( in concert with
members of His party).

Secondly, the comment was intended to pour scorn on our system of Government with an attempt
to tarnish the reputation of our elected leaders;produce factual evidence specific in nature in terms
of bribery,corruption or any other action that contravenes our laws or admit to the usual spread of the
metaphorical 'red herrings' that frequent your responses.

Thirdly, Your lack of knowledge with respect to the powers held by the Monarchy does not need
're-decoration',it need a complete 'makeover'.The Monarch can only act in terms of precedence
and convention and the use of such powers are strictly limited;even in the event of a crisis.

'A politically appointed head of state would not be independent of the politicians that appointed
them and that they hope will appoint their future preference, and therefore the system would
have been corrupt, ab initio.'

This comment lacks definition and clarity.The 'future preference' referred to would be chosen by
parliamentarians totally different to the currently appointed President;even the Government in power
could be different.If you suggest that politicians voted by the people to represent their interests 'collude'
to vote for the President of their choice then that 'collusion' would be diluted with the required majority
parliamentary vote in lieu of the current system where the PM appointee is a 'fait accompli' for the
position of Governor General.

In terms of the usual 'rant' concerning our system of Government,gain the support
of the people and obtain the reforms you desire.

Your 'selective amnesia' with respect to the provision of the preamble vote
was noted.
 VANEST55
Joined: 8/17/2014
Msg: 43
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:15:37 PM
gingerosity on 6/4/2012

'Like it or not these unelected, unaccountable sponges are extremely relevant... just ask Gough Whitlam.'


It is perhaps pertinent to suggest that the word 'sponges' was intended to mean 'spongers'.Either this
comment is made out of general ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive the readers of this thread.

However,Irrespective of this lapse in terms of clarity The monarch is legally exempt from Tax
and thus not a 'sponger'.A false comment.

By way of analogy a citizen may claim a legitimate deduction from His/Her income and pay tax on the
reduced income without being considered to be a 'sponger'.

I also would suggest that the Crown IS accountable for their actions.A specific example relates to the
abdication of His Majesty King Edward V111,the Duke of Windsor.

Her Majesty The Queen of Australia is accountable for Her actions and can only act in terms of
convention and precedence.Her Majesty has limited powers;if Whitlam advised the Monarch
to dismiss the Governor General before the dismissal the crisis would have been avoided.

Once again the 'hate speech' proceeds without fact;the Queen is not required to pay tax in law but
is denigrated for being a 'sponger'.Once again the writer 'gingerosity' has resorted to pure pseudology
in order to dramatise His hatred of our Constitution.It does not matter whether He 'gets His facts' right;
merely spew out hatred!It is the mentality of an anarchist.It should disturb the readers of this thread.

The Fact is that this generous Queen voluntarily chooses to pay tax.Her Majesty has paid tax for
more than 20 years although not required to do so.The Prince of Wales also voluntarily pays Tax.
 ascasualasitgets
Joined: 9/23/2014
Msg: 44
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:20:10 PM
the "crown" has been traitorous, treacherous dogs for a long time. still a goddamn "monarch" WTF! just cause the first queen lizzy was so disgusting inside and out that she couldn't get a man to save the empire, doesn’t mean it's a tradition. useless inbred dogs!
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  >