PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

BenThere 25th Oct 2013 23:35

Wouldn't we all be better off if the government just stayed out of relationships, marital and otherwise? A lot of the impetus for gay marriage relates to the legal bennies of being married. Why not do away with those and level the playing field for everyone?

I could care less who gets married. It's none of my business. Darwin works out the consequences, not me. And Freedom is what I was fighting for.

chuboy 25th Oct 2013 23:55

I suppose you could take that position as well. For the most part I don't think the government interferes all that much.

I'm sure the laws came about in the first place because people who married within a religious institution eventually found that there was no legal system in place to decide who gets what in the event that one of the spouses dies and there is no last will and testament.

Then you get into more complicated matters like who gets custody of children, tax law, citizenship or PR in the country because you're in a relationship with a citizen, etc.

If it became a free-for-all, I can't imagine it would be too long before people were asking for a legal framework again.

BenThere 25th Oct 2013 23:59

The obvious solution is to have a last will and testament for the distribution of your worldly possessions. No excuse there. Takes less than an hour to do a legally sufficient will, and you can do it on-line.

Up-into-the-air 26th Oct 2013 00:06

RFS and "Global Warming"
 
Sorry, but the posts were getting a bit "warm and fuzzy" so to bring us down to earth this pic from the RFS of NSW:

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1e227f86.png

Andu 26th Oct 2013 00:12

Reading the last few posts reinforces my earlier comments that within two years after same sex marriage is accepted, we'll have the Muslims demanding polygamous marriage be accepted as well.

Oh, and you can bet they'll also be demanding the benefits paid to all those multiple wives (because you can bet they'll all be demanding 'benefits') by the taxpayer are "fair and equal" for all.

baggersup 26th Oct 2013 00:18

It strikes me that some of the polygamy practitioners, at least in the UK with which I'm more familiar would not wish to be legally married under the rule of law in the UK to these various women they claim as "wives."

They bring in a few from the old country, "marry" them, (many are first cousins, so they keep the money in the family) no. 2,3,4,5, then get them pregs right away and presto! The golden gates of the benefits system opens before them in all its glory.

"Single mum," kids, max benefits, house, on the dole for life. More kids, more money. Man doesn't even have to work--or work on the record--he's pulling in income from multiple wives' benefits, because legally he has only one wife--the rest are not recognized as wives by the UK. They are single mothers.

Then once they have 4-5 residences in which all these "wives" are residing, they start to consolidate a couple of the wives into one residence, keep the council houses and start renting them out illegally for loads of dosh at market value to other folks in "their community."

Legalize polygamy? No way. That would put a stop to one of the most lucrative businesses of those whose religions allow multiple wives. It's a gold mine for them. He gets all the wives, the state supports them all and all the kids and he takes his cut off the top--especially the rent from the illegally rented council houses.

Does Oz have the same situation? Multiple illegal "wives" who are single mums with kids seen by the government as deserving of full benefits? All feeding the coffers of the one husband?

Andu 26th Oct 2013 00:23


Does Oz have the same situation? Multiple illegal "wives" who are single mums with kids seen by the government as deserving of full benefits? All feeding the coffers of the one husband?
Not acknowledged officially, but in fact - yes. The only 'rule' CentreLink (the payer of government benefits) insists upon is that the 'deserted' (yeah, right) wives live in separate residences - separate residences, all public housing (Oz version of council houses) all provided by the taxpayer.

500N 26th Oct 2013 00:27

Andu
Thanks. it was a pretty good guess from the last time I drove in Sydney
And knowing what those two groups can be like - BUT, not only those
two groups mind you !!!

500N 26th Oct 2013 00:33

chuboy

Firstly, my comment about getting on a plane was more to do with
"pedophilia/beastiality" than the other two. I have strong views
on this subject and glad the authorities have at last said a problem
exists in this regard. Now they need to nail the people.

(In case you don't know, people get on planes to fly to countries north
to Jimmy Saville with little boys and girls and anyone who denies it
has rocks for brains).

On the others including legal gay marriage, to be honest, I don't have a strong view on it although would lean towards not having it.

I will agree with what Andu said in post 9066 and the one following that.
We know it will happen and it will be done for some just to suck the teet.

500N 26th Oct 2013 01:40

It's hit the MSN. No mention of ethnicity !!!

Not looking good for the victims

"Four men, aged 27 to 66, and a 62-year-old woman were injured suffering a fractured cheekbone, broken nose, concussion, lacerations and bruising.

Police said the five adults were walking along Blair Street when a group of eight males started hurling abuse and assaulting them at 12.30am on Saturday.

My words. Jews always came across to me in Caulfield as not one's to pick a fight.

Ken Borough 26th Oct 2013 03:02

What a night of fun and frolics by Sydney Harbour would this be? :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Guess who's coming to dinner? Abbott's round table

And to think that the taxpayers of Australia are watering and feeding this lot of sycophants? :E:E:E

Takan Inchovit 26th Oct 2013 03:40

Tragic! They forgot Larry.

bosnich71 26th Oct 2013 04:45

Jeez, Ken that really is terrible isn't it? I mean for 6 years Labour never handed out any free lunches and here's this Abbott bloke throwing our money about as if it's his.

P.S. my Missus is still waiting for the courts to decide if any of her union dues will be returned due to that feller Thompson visiting those 'Ladies of Negotiable Virtue'. perhaps you could get wound up about that one day and give us all a rest from the usual cr** you come up with. :)

Ken Borough 26th Oct 2013 05:06

Boz,

I won't be getting wound-up if any union leader/official is sent down coz he or she has broken the law. Any such person is just as bad as any other white-collar criminal. There are lots of them around our fair land. I do hope sincerely that members of the HSU find justice. One bloke is off to do porridge but whether or not any money is recoverable is another matter. Much has already been spent and from what I can gather, there's very little by way of assets to sell up and return as funds to the union.

As to tonight's din-dins, I'm simply commenting on the PM's dinner companions and what fun they'd be. I'm sure the ALP did the same but why should the taxpayer pay for any of this? It's fair enough to pay for dinner if he's entertaining on behalf of the Australian Government but in this case the guests can hardly be said to be of such stature who should be entertained by the Commonwealth. Surely the cost of this knees -up, and others like it, should come from the host's pocket or that of his or her party?

Fliegenmong 26th Oct 2013 05:12

"It's fair enough to pay for dinner if he's entertaining on behalf of the Australian Government but in this case the guests can hardly be said to be of such stature who should be entertained by the Commonwealth. Surely the cost of this knees -up, and others like it, should come from the host's pocket or that of his or her party?"

Ken, that belongs in Friday Jokes!! We should also be paying them to attend weddings...even in India.....study tours and all that, you know....

I'd have thought Janet & Hubby would have had an invite?

Andu 26th Oct 2013 07:13

7 News "flabbergasted" that an attack on Jewish people could occur in Australia in 2013. The offenders' faces pixelated out, but it was still pretty obvious that they were of "southern European/Mediterranean" ethnicity.

We've just been given a glimpse into the future of Australia, in my humble opinion.

500N 26th Oct 2013 07:17

Andu

I missed that, it wasn't on Ch 9.


I will say Tony Abbott came across well in his speech.
Some great one liners about Bill Shorten.

Tanya also spoke well.

bosnich71 26th Oct 2013 09:14

Ken ..... If Thompson wasn't allowed to use union members money to satisfy his carnal desires then he is a scumbag for doing so.If he was allowed, as it seems he is claiming,then the whole committee of the H.S.U. including Williamson who was the national president or whatever of the Labour party are a load of B******s for free loading off their members. Either way Gillard and co. are equally a bunch of scumbags for continuing to use his vote for so long.
The labour party had no qualms about forking out $400,000 odd of taxpayers money to help their "non" member Craig but has never thought for one moment about the members of the H.S.U. whose funds were misused. Nothing odd there that's the Labour party through and through .... and the P****s wonder why members are leaving in droves.
Sorry for the rant earlier but after 6 years of watching these "socialists" at work I think that it is a bit rich that after 6 weeks we have to listen to Shorten and company plus the ABC etc. moaning on about Abbott.

7x7 26th Oct 2013 09:15


Tanya also spoke well.
In the clip they showed of Pill Bucket on the channel I was watching (I think it was 7) she came across as wooden and flat. "One Term Tony" is about as creative as Labor has been in every policy they tried to enact over the last six years. The operative word being 'tried'.

She worries me. Or more to the point, I can't believe that after the stark, unmistakeable lesson of Gillard, Labor is putting up another so obviously flawed woman into a leadership position. Just because she's a woman? There couldn't be any other reason she should be placed ahead of a half dozen other candidates for the job.

A classic example of tokenism at its worst.

SOPS 26th Oct 2013 09:20

I'm. In shock. For the first time in a long time, a sensible comment from a labor MP. Credit where credit is due, I agree with him.

Labor MP Michael Danby calls for debate on Australians fighting in Syria conflict - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.