Australian Politics Forum - Time for a republic.

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 102278
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #45 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:06pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:01pm:

Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example.

How about you?

That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty. Embarrassed

Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.

Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy?

Easy - your introduction of gas chambers into the argument.
No one wants that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 102278 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Time for a republic. Reply #46 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:07pm: Why - are you royalty? He's king of the sewer Aussie is his prince Kings Consort Maybe FD does like Kings and Queens?
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44070
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #47 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:13pm

Ugreggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:51pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion.

Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -

My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican.

Wouldn't you agree?

Why?

Secular doesn't mean people can't have a certain religion.

You don't understand.

It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist.

To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican.

You cannot be atheist, or any other religion.

That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution.

Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist?

In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway?

You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper?

Isaacs, Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew. As was Zelman Cowen.
Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:33pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48822
At my desk.

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #48 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:15pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:06pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:01pm:

Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example.

How about you?

That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty. Embarrassed

Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.

Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy?

Easy - your introduction of gas chambers into the argument.
No one wants that.

That doesn't make it a strawman Bobby. It is merely a demonstration of why the feeble-minded approach taken by the republican movement has turned them into a decades-long failure.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10760
armidale
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #49 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:23pm

'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'.

Only the GG has 'power and functions'. The King may wear pink pyjamas and be brain-dead but that has no authority in the Commonwealth.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 102278
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #50 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:27pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:06pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:01pm:

Depends entirely on the system Bobby. I don't think we should swap the GG for gas chambers, for example.

How about you?

That's a straw man fallacy - naughty - naughty. Embarrassed

Anyway - you get a democratic vote above.

Can you explain why you think it is a strawman fallacy?

Easy - your introduction of gas chambers into the argument.
No one wants that.

That doesn't make it a strawman Bobby. It is merely a demonstration of why the feeble-minded approach taken by the republican movement has turned them into a decades-long failure.

It is a strawman as gas chambers are the only alternative to your position -
which then makes my argument easy to defeat.
You created gas chambers as though without royalty
that was the only outcome.

strawman

https://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Quote:

This term is probably a reference to the middle ages, when people would build scarecrows stuffed with straw to use for military training.
Strawmen are easy to defeat. In debates, people will often misrepresent the argument of their opposition, then gleefully shoot it down.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48822 At my desk.	Re: Time for a republic. Reply #51 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:28pm Talking about gas chambers doesn't make someone's argument a strawman Bobby.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47295
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #52 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:29pm

I really find it hard to answer either YES or NO.
It's really a defaulted Question Poll.

Considering 'Royalty' of Kings & Queens are 'Masters of Ceremony' - not Political (Presidents, Ministers), not Military (Emperors, Empresses). They are in chief 'Entertainers' and hence why the 'Media' is focused upon them like a Soap Opera of Days of our 'Royal' Lives.
Hence also the Media world of Music/Entertainment in the USA being 'Celebrity' and trying to form their own 'Royal' bloodlines among them.

Throw in the fact that the 'Political' involvement of the Royals has been minimal.
I find it hard to constitute any 'Political' change here justified by the passing of a 'Royal'. Roll Eyes

Sounds like more 'Media/Mafia' shenanigans corrupting Politics to suit its own selfish agenda and narrative.

The 'Republic' they are trying to con us with isn't really a 'Political' one. It's just another poop-job by the Media and its Celebrities who 'think' they know Politics.

Maybe they want to 'usurp' the Aborigines (which they label 'black') with their Republic, from being handed back to them?
Maybe they want a Republic upon some Irish cliche because they can't think of one that would be more 'original' in its Australian and 'Southern' Hemisphere experience?
Maybe they need Australia to become a bigger international version of the Confederate South, so as to re-invigorate a justification of the Democrat North's existence - which is currently capitulating like a Politically Correct Gay/Trans fart?

I'm all for a Republic or 'whatever' in regards to this part of the world - if it is 'needed'.
What I won't stand for is these Media/Mafia Celebrities and their Industry trying to thrust a 'political' entity on our country - just to suit their selfish narrative and 'purses'.

Media: Stealing from Australia, Oppressing S.America and keeping N.America in the dark.
...like
Religion: Having stole from Asia, Oppressed Europe and kept Africa in the dark (continent).

The Media/Mafia (Big Brother) should just F*UCK OFF to Oceania where it belongs.

The Media and it's Republic is NOT THE TRUE WEST of Politics.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 135950
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #53 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:31pm

chimera wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:23pm:

'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'.

Only the GG has 'power and functions'. The King may wear pink pyjamas and be brain-dead but that has no authority in the Commonwealth.

So, get rid of him.

Simples Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 135950
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #54 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:32pm

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:13pm:

Ugreggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:51pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion.

Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -

My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican.

Wouldn't you agree?

Why?

Secular doesn't mean people can't have a certain religion.

You don't understand.

It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist.

To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican.

You cannot be atheist, or any other religion.

That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution.

Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist?

In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway?

You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper?

We're a secular country.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44070
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #55 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:35pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:32pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:13pm:

Ugreggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:51pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Currently, the only way to become Australia's Head of State is to be born into a certain family (on the other side of the planet) and to be a certain religion.

Anyone who thinks that is acceptable in our secular sovereign nation is not a real Australian.

Here we go, no argument, no reasoning -

My rock solid argument is, as a secular country we should not have a HOS who must be Protestant Anglican.

Wouldn't you agree?

Why?

Secular doesn't mean people can't have a certain religion.

You don't understand.

It's not that the HOS can have any particular religion, or even that they are permitted to be an atheist.

To be Australia's HOS one must be Protestant Anglican.

You cannot be atheist, or any other religion.

That doesn't quite sit right when one considers Section 116 of The Constitution.

Would you like a Catholic HOS? A Mohammedan? An atheist?

In what way would that alter anything for a person with no political power anyway?

You were vehement, for example, about gay marriage having no impact on non-gay lives. What impact does the sovereign's anglicanism have on you or on anyone? Why is this the unbearable pebble in your clogs, clodhopper?

We're a secular country.

Which is why we had Jewish and Catholic as well as Anglican GGs.

Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew. As was Zelman Cowen. Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic. Hayden was an atheist.

But you forgot to say how it matters to you what the sovereign's religion is.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47295
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #56 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:40pm

Frank wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:35pm:

Which is why we had Jewish and Catholic as well as Anglican GGs.

Sir Isaac Alfred Isaac's, GG (1855–1948) was a Jew. As was Zelman Cowen. Peter Cosgrove is a Catholic. Hayden was an atheist.

But you forgot to say how it matters to you what the sovereign's religion is.

My dear Ancestor Wink

And first 'native-born' Australian GG.
That's if any non-aborigines born here are allowed to call themselves 'native'?

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Nom de Plume Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 671	Re: Time for a republic. Reply #57 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:41pm I prefer the ancient Roman model with 2 consuls.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47295
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #58 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:45pm

Politics in the Northern Hemisphere 'regardless' of what Political format, be it Democracy, Republic, Commune(ism), etc, etc - only empowers the 'individual' and looks after its own 'political people' to a lesser extent, not the people outside the political sphere.

We are in the

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

.
That means its 'new territory' concerning Politics.
That means it is meant to empower 'the People' directly and to a lesser extent the individual.
Basically it is the total 'reverse' to Northern Hemisphere politics.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 102278
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Time for a republic.
Reply #59 - Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:55pm

Jasin wrote on Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:

I really find it hard to answer either YES or NO.
It's really a defaulted Question Poll.

Considering 'Royalty' of Kings & Queens are 'Masters of Ceremony' - not Political (Presidents, Ministers), not Military (Emperors, Empresses).
They are in chief 'Entertainers' and hence why the 'Media' is focused upon them like a Soap Opera of Days of our 'Royal' Lives.
Hence also the Media world of Music/Entertainment in the USA being 'Celebrity' and trying to form their own 'Royal' bloodlines among them.

Throw in the fact that the 'Political' involvement of the Royals has been minimal.
I find it hard to constitute any 'Political' change here justified by the passing of a 'Royal'. Roll Eyes

Sounds like more 'Media/Mafia' shenanigans corrupting Politics to suit its own selfish agenda and narrative.

The 'Republic' they are trying to con us with isn't really a 'Political' one. It's just another poop-job by the Media and its Celebrities who 'think' they know Politics.

Maybe they want to 'usurp' the Aborigines (which they label 'black') with their Republic, from being handed back to them?
Maybe they want a Republic upon some Irish cliche because they can't think of one that would be more 'original' in its Australian and 'Southern' Hemisphere experience?
Maybe they need Australia to become a bigger international version of the Confederate South, so as to re-invigorate a justification of the Democrat North's existence - which is currently capitulating like a Politically Correct Gay/Trans fart?

I'm all for a Republic or 'whatever' in regards to this part of the world - if it is 'needed'.
What I won't stand for is these Media/Mafia Celebrities and their Industry trying to thrust a 'political' entity on our country - just to suit their selfish narrative and 'purses'.

Media: Stealing from Australia, Oppressing S.America and keeping N.America in the dark.
...like
Religion: Having stole from Asia, Oppressed Europe and kept Africa in the dark (continent).

The Media/Mafia (Big Brother) should just F*UCK OFF to Oceania where it belongs.

The Media and it's Republic is NOT THE TRUE WEST of Politics.

They are in chief Entertainers -

yes - that's true -
the public seem to love all the costumes they wear and
the trumpets playing - what a facade of utter nonsense.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Do you want royalty banished from our political system?
* This poll has now closed *
Yes 15 (48.4%) No 16 (51.6%) Total votes: 31 « Created by: Bobby. on: Sep 11^th, 2022 at 5:03pm »