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)

500N 18th Dec 2013 05:16

Well, he shouldn't have campaigned against the Liberals during the election.

As the Libs said, he is there to represent Gov't policy and it was a Lib.

parabellum 18th Dec 2013 05:30


The head of the armed forces should be the best person for the job,
not the one who is picked because he said he will do the GG's job.

The choice is often political with little or nothing to chose between them so it really doesn't matter and if one specifically states he won't do the job then tough, "next!"

parabellum 18th Dec 2013 05:35


His job was to represent Australia in New York not the Liberal party!

But once out of Australia the liberal party is Australia, the ALP are just a bunch of parochial, surplus, peripheral crap!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

John Eacott 18th Dec 2013 05:40


Originally Posted by Mitch Henderson (Post 8212783)
This after former Victorian premier Steve Bracks was sacked from his position as Australia's consul-general in New York with one of Julie Bishop' first decisions in her new position.Ms Bishop cited the appointment by Labour was ''inappropriate'' because of its proximity to the Federal election even though it was not in the caretaker period.

Hmmm: not that I agree with the appointment of another failed politician, but you need to be a little less parochial, Mr Henderson.


The appointment was formally made on August 4, the day the election was called and before the caretaker period began. Mr Bracks's scheduled departure for New York was put back to more than a week after the election.

The decision yesterday to scrap his appointment was made to ensure taxpayers were not saddled with extra flight costs by recalling him once he had already arrived.

The position carries a salary of $250,000 a year and would have allowed Mr Bracks to live in a $25 million New York penthouse at the prominent 1 Beekman Place address on the East River.

Mr Bracks last night told the ABC: "I was available, I was appointed democratically by a government - through executive council - and the new government has a different view."

Labor ministers said it had not been necessary to consult the Coalition about Mr Bracks's appointment because it was outside the caretaker period.
Downer warned Bracks on plum post

Outside the caretaker period? The man needs a razor blade to split the hair on that one!

bosnich71 18th Dec 2013 07:12

What is it with Bracks anyway ?
A primary school teacher, not exactly needing to be Einstein,the bloke was parachuted into the safe seat of Williamstown in Melbourne after two failed attempts in Ballarat.
As the local M.P. he was basically useless, a trend which continued when he became Premier .... known locally as "Mirror", because of his stock answer to any question, "I'll look into it", which naturally he very rarely did.
Then again early in his parliamentary career, when he was very much a junior M.P. my wife was told by someone in local politics that Mr. Bracks would end up as Premier which is exactly what happened. Perhaps he could be trusted to do the right thing when the strings were being pulled.

500N 18th Dec 2013 10:59

"Then again early in his parliamentary career, when he was very much a junior M.P. my wife was told by someone in local politics that Mr. Bracks would end up as Premier which is exactly what happened. Perhaps he could be trusted to do the right thing when the strings were being pulled."

Well he failed at being a muppet too because even when they pulled the strings he did nothing.

Anybody would have been better than Bracks, I wish John Thwaites had been Premiere and not deputy.

bosnich71 18th Dec 2013 11:36

500N ... John Thwaites .

Ever wondered why he did a runner virtually the same day as Bracksy ?

500N 18th Dec 2013 11:44

Yes and I have never got a decent answer.

PM me if you like, I would like to know.

7x7 18th Dec 2013 20:55

Those who took offence at the homosexual/bestiality comparison and refuted the 'slippery slope' argument might like to take the time to read the following.


Some serious consequences to consider

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers?? You can't get married."

"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

Pretty well sums it up, doesn't it??

rh200 19th Dec 2013 00:05

:p Thats a good one, forgot about the polygamy angle as well when I make comparisons.

Airey Belvoir 19th Dec 2013 01:19


"Good morning. We'd like to get married"


"Certainly, do ask your partner to come in and please remove that sheep you've brought in with you"


"That's who I want to get married to"


"Errr - what nationality are you?"


"Does it matter?"


"Well.......there are certain dispensations for certain nationalities and localities. And could you please ask your partner to stop shitting on the floor?"

........................................

Ken Borough 19th Dec 2013 05:08

Here is an interesting take on the ABC v Mudroch machinations written by an Australian who many around here admire, John Menadue

Murdoch and Abbott vs ABC. John Menadue | Pearls and Irritations

bosnich71 19th Dec 2013 06:18

Got as far as," Tony Abbott has a debt to repay to Rupert Murdoch," then gave it away I'm afraid.

Ken Borough 19th Dec 2013 06:24

Well, Boz, he has! How does he expiate his indebtedness for such partisan support? That said, please persevere as it is an interesting read, well written. :ok:

Flying Binghi 19th Dec 2013 06:33


via Ken Borough:

Here is an interesting take on the ABC v Mudroch machinations written by an Australian who many around here admire, John Menadue
Hmmm... and yet no mention of the Gillard slush fund...

The ABC was aware that an alleged raid had occurred. However, we were unable to confirm it had happened and therefore, we did not report it.


The ABC's news judgement is an impediment to fully informed democracy - Michael Smith News

Captain Sand Dune 19th Dec 2013 10:30

Great editorial in today’s Australian about the screams of lefty outrage about the appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission. Clearly their definition of ‘balance’ differs with everyone else’s.
Honestly, the word ‘hypocrisy’ is lost on the lefties in this country. Can they really think the voting public is so stupid not to see it? Oh, wait...........

Flying Binghi 19th Dec 2013 10:56


Great editorial in today’s Australian about the screams of lefty outrage about the appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission...
Heh, some of the gays are in a tizz about it to... Gay Liberal pundit appointed Human Rights Commissioner










.

Flying Binghi 19th Dec 2013 10:58

...and ten posts to go to crack the big 10K..:eek:

My moneys on 500N getting the honours..:)

Flying Binghi 19th Dec 2013 10:59

...although, Worrals may do it.

9 to go......

500N 19th Dec 2013 11:03

Well I'll get #9992 :O


CSD

Just read it. Very much "up in arms".

Abbott is gradually dismantling the lefty power towers set up in the last 6 years. You can always tell when he is hitting the right spot, they scream louder !

It's very good to see.

I hope he blunts the UN/UNHCR in Aus and limits what they can and can't do
or talk about, maybe even restrict their movement in certain areas.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15.


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