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
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The Royals and the RelevancePage 3 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
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  >