PDA

View Full Version : The Republic of Australia: 2010



Arhetton
20th April 08, 01:53 AM
So, it looks like the national debate and political push will be for another referendum on Australia becoming a republic, if in the short term, possibly by 2010 (2.5 years).

I totally support this idea, I also support the idea of a bill of rights and many of the other things tossed around at the 2020 summit (which australia doesn't actually have, our constitutional law is pretty shite).

I was very pleased about reading about this and the 2020 summit, long term vision ftw.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5512/n6117716633754999226ll6.jpg

So it looks like our civil liberties and personal freedom might actually expand in this decade - amazing, considering the external forces encouraging the opposite (changing privacy laws in the GWOT).

Go Australia!

Ryan Platts
20th April 08, 02:13 AM
I agree. She's not My queen! But I'm half-Irish anyway, so....

Boyd
20th April 08, 02:14 AM
ha trick thread according to my 3rd grade geography class you are both a continent AND a country

bob
20th April 08, 02:43 AM
So, it looks like the national debate and political push will be for another referendum on Australia becoming a republic, if in the short term, possibly by 2010 (2.5 years).

I totally support this idea, I also support the idea of a bill of rights and many of the other things tossed around at the 2020 summit (which australia doesn't actually have, our constitutional law is pretty shite).

I was very pleased about reading about this and the 2020 summit, long term vision ftw.


So it looks like our civil liberties and personal freedom might actually expand in this decade - amazing, considering the external forces encouraging the opposite (changing privacy laws in the GWOT).

Go Australia!

I'd need a lot of convincing that a bill of rights would necessarily improve civil liberties and personal freedom.

In fact, if you go here... www.australia2020.gov.au (http://www.australia2020.gov.au) (page 32) you'll note that while a bill of rights was part of the agenda, it doesn't seem to end up as part of the rough draft of top ideas to come out of the talks.

There was at least one interesting idea on that page however:


Exploit broadband and emerging IT technologies to enable new forms of citizen involvement


Referendum by internet poll? Ron Paul here we come.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 02:48 AM
I thought a republic was a nation where the people were not ruled by a monarch but by the people. Does the queen really have any impact at all on your government? Is she not just a figurehead like here in Canada? (we have our own bill of rights). Is removing the queen as a figurehead that big of a deal to you guys?

bob
20th April 08, 02:57 AM
I thought a republic was a nation where the people were not ruled by a monarch but by the people. Does the queen really have any impact at all on your government? Is she not just a figurehead like here in Canada? (we have our own bill of rights). Is removing the queen as a figurehead that big of a deal to you guys?

It is likely purely symbolic, however symbols are important. Additionally, the debate centers around what system do you replace it with? Do you simply call the governor general the president and change the stationery or do you actually change the system of choosing the head of state?

ATM it's chosen by the PM but there is call for some form of election by the people, which obviously gives the head of state some kind of popular mandate for power and results in another nexus of power in our system of government, potentially a destabilising one.

Arhetton
20th April 08, 02:57 AM
many of australians civil liberties are enshrined in things like 'the privacy act' - which is basically much easier to change than a constitutional decleration or a bill of rights - in effect, politicials and judges have much more flexibility than they should have, for legislative 'efficacy'.

What about this new nonsense of bosses being able to read employees emails? This stuff is just silly in my opinion.

http://www.cla.asn.au/

I've read the constitution and no-where did I see rights to due process, fair representation, the right to trial by court of law blah blah blah its all set in precedents and individual cases and seperate acts - combine them.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 03:02 AM
It is likely purely symbolic, however symbols are important. Additionally, the debate centers around what system do you replace it with? Do you simply call the governor general the president and change the stationery or do you actually change the system of choosing the head of state?

ATM it's chosen by the PM but there is call for some form of election by the people, which obviously gives the head of state some kind of popular mandate for power and results in another nexus of power in our system of government, potentially a destabilising one.
I guess what i was getting at was, if the system is fine and stable right now(i don't know if it is) why change it? If you want your own charter of rights and freedoms (i beleive you are using the british one) could you not right one up under the current system?

bob
20th April 08, 03:07 AM
I guess what i was getting at was, if the system is fine and stable right now(i don't know if it is) why change it? If you want your own charter of rights and freedoms (i beleive you are using the british one) could you not right one up under the current system?

That is essentially the argument against. However, as I said it's a matter of symbolism and self regard.

Cullion
20th April 08, 03:11 AM
Is the English bill of rights not part of Australian law?

bob
20th April 08, 03:14 AM
many of australians civil liberties are enshrined in things like 'the privacy act' - which is basically much easier to change than a constitutional decleration or a bill of rights - in effect, politicials and judges have much more flexibility than they should have, for legislative 'efficacy'.

What about this new nonsense of bosses being able to read employees emails? This stuff is just silly in my opinion.

http://www.cla.asn.au/

I've read the constitution and no-where did I see rights to due process, fair representation, the right to trial by court of law blah blah blah its all set in precedents and individual cases and seperate acts - combine them.

If governments want to remove your liberties, they'll create the perception of a need for such changes by artificially inflating the fear of the populace, and then tell you they have a mandate for their measures. They'll piss on whatever piece of paper you care to wave at them if they can create a strong enough cassus belli.

Ryan Platts
20th April 08, 03:15 AM
Also, many people don't really care about the British connection, or resent it due to their heritage (for example, descendants of Fenians). It is more of a symbolic statement that Australia is an egalitarian country which opposes hereditary privilege. Of course, we're not really egalitarian, but a republic represents the ideal surrounding this. So I support it. The British monarchy is NOT Australian. It's that simple. It's too far removed from actual reality in this country.

SFGOON
20th April 08, 03:19 AM
So you guys are replacing your "carnival" system of govenment with monkey parlament, clown judicial system, and a Bengalese white tiger as your execuive branch with a "circus" model where disputes are solved with a contest between strongmen and clumsy trapeeze artists. The tiger will, of course, remain head of state.

If this doesn't work my offer to make your island a Disney Franchise stands.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 03:32 AM
That is essentially the argument against. However, as I said it's a matter of symbolism and self regard.
As always it boils down to "if you like what you look at in miror". lol

lant3rn
20th April 08, 03:33 AM
If governments want to remove your liberties, they'll create the perception of a need for such changes by artificially inflating the fear of the populace, and then tell you they have a mandate for their measures. They'll piss on whatever piece of paper you care to wave at them if they can create a strong enough cassus belli.

Riddeck?

socratic
20th April 08, 03:38 AM
I thought a republic was a nation where the people were not ruled by a monarch but by the people. Does the queen really have any impact at all on your government? Is she not just a figurehead like here in Canada? (we have our own bill of rights). Is removing the queen as a figurehead that big of a deal to you guys?

She is a figurehead, but her representative can liquedate the elected government and has done so before. (That said it was somewhat necessary- the opposition vetod their entire budget).

Unfortunately there's a lot of old people who really like the Queen, especially Veterans (queen and country, after all.) I support a Republic- I think the Queen is an arbitrary tie that needs to be severed. A bad memory of colonialism.

bob
20th April 08, 03:46 AM
Riddeck?

was my gimmick. I'll come clean.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 03:50 AM
She is a figurehead, but her representative can liquedate the elected government and has done so before. (That said it was somewhat necessary- the opposition vetod their entire budget).
.

Gotcha, don't agree with that at all. I bet that was a big calalyst for the republic movement.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 03:51 AM
was my gimmick. I'll come clean.

lol doesn't suit you aswell as him.

bob
20th April 08, 04:05 AM
Gotcha, don't agree with that at all. I bet that was a big calalyst for the republic movement.

The point is, that had nothing to do with the Queen. The gov. general is called her representative but is chosen directly by the PM and in a republic may well fulfil exactly the same function and have exactly the same powers.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 04:09 AM
The point is, that had nothing to do with the Queen. The gov. general is called her representative but is chosen directly by the PM and in a republic may well fulfil exactly the same function and have exactly the same powers.

I know its the same system here In Kanadiana. People here also thought about getting rid of the GG after she went on a spending spree with taxpayer money.

bob
20th April 08, 04:09 AM
Is the English bill of rights not part of Australian law?

My understanding is that it's one of the historical antecedents that help frame our system of laws but that it is not directly part of our laws.

Ryan Platts
20th April 08, 04:44 AM
Republicanism should be instituted simply to laugh in Malcolm Fraser's face. Whitlam finally has his revenge!!!

socratic
20th April 08, 06:05 AM
Gotcha, don't agree with that at all. I bet that was a big calalyst for the republic movement.
Hardly. Everyone apparently just hated the alcoholic fucker that was the Governer General at the time.

Note that Australia hasn't been a Republic yet. Most conservative governments (Howard, I'm looking at you, you fuck) make the idea of an Australian republic somehow unnapealing through wording, and so it either never goes to referendum or the referendum's majority is in the negative.

My modern Australian history isn't that great, but I was of the impression this occured in the 70s, and basically the Liberal government held a fairly hefty number of seats, yet didn't have enough to form a government, and literally veto'd the proposed budget for the elected government. Apparently they were forced to borrow the sums of cash from some rather dodgy individual, and the GG intervened and removed the government. He's allowed to do that, he's the queen's representative. Just, you know, it's kinda fuckin' annoying when not only was the guy a bastard, but the Queen was thousands of Ks away doing whatever it is useless rich people do.


The point is, that had nothing to do with the Queen. The gov. general is called her representative but is chosen directly by the PM and in a republic may well fulfil exactly the same function and have exactly the same powers.
They aren't appointed by the Queen?

Cullion
20th April 08, 06:12 AM
I think people overestimate how much political power the Queen has. She officially does lots of things, but in reality she's simply performing a ceremonial finalising to something that was decided by the body politic.

Truculent Sheep
20th April 08, 06:41 AM
With all due respect, this sounds like yet another desperate Australian attempt to stick it to Britain - motivated by the same brooding resentment that seems to drive you lot so hard at succeeding in sport if not making soap operas. Everyone mentions the power of symbols, but symbolism is by definition granted power only by those that choose to intrepret that symbolism.

My question is - why? You've got a perfectly good country, things are on the up, and the likelihood is that you'll be taking it up the batty from a domestic elite who'll simply move in and ram their snouts into the trough once the GG gets told to fuck off... What's the point? You'll never be truly independent until you get rid of this 'pommie bastards do us wrong' victim mentality. And if you do become a Republic, what then? I doubt that in itself will get rid of this mindset - it's based on grievance and so perpetuates a never-ending cycle of inferiority and petty spite.

The 'let's undo colonialism' angle is silly too - And if you really want to undo colonialism, why not just move back to Europe? But that would be silly, and I think the current interest in the subject is spawned by Rudd trying put Blair-esque populism onto public discourse. The fact that he's not seriously considering a referendum any time soon suggests this is ultimately a feel-good PR stunt.

elipson
20th April 08, 06:42 AM
Does your GG actually have any decision in how its power is used?

In Canada, it only dissolves the government when the PM tells her too. And that only happens before an election, or a failed confidence vote. The PM also decides who the GG is, the Queen doesn't do fuck all.

That being said, the GG (and the senate) are just a waste of fucking money and should be scrapped completely. But that could be done without changing the entire governmental system!

What would be included in these changes? How will it effect the electoral system? would it still be parliamentary (read: better)?

Arhetton
20th April 08, 07:24 AM
the governer general has been mostly symbolic however in the recent past once famously stepped in to strip a prime minister of his position (gough whitlam, seen as an idealist/visionary politician).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_whitlam#The_dismissal

republics aren't perfect political machines either, I just think it is a positive step forward - having a referendum on national identity is essentially giving people some actual democratic power - they get to make a decision, not the legislature, not the courts, but the people.

bob
20th April 08, 07:38 AM
To be specific, the GG didn't strip the PM of his position. It was a more a case that in his view, the government was not functioning (which it wasn't) and therefore he turned the issue over to the people by calling for an election (which the government lost rather massively, giving some strength to the argument that the GG was in fact enacting the will of the people while the PM wasn't.)

Arhetton
20th April 08, 08:23 AM
come on theres nothing wrong with some dodgy loans!

lant3rn
20th April 08, 08:55 AM
Does your GG actually have any decision in how its power is used?

In Canada, it only dissolves the government when the PM tells her too. And that only happens before an election, or a failed confidence vote. The PM also decides who the GG is, the Queen doesn't do fuck all.

That being said, the GG (and the senate) are just a waste of fucking money and should be scrapped completely. But that could be done without changing the entire governmental system!

What would be included in these changes? How will it effect the electoral system? would it still be parliamentary (read: better)?

We need a Functional senate and i think we should replace the GG with the head of it.

lant3rn
20th April 08, 08:57 AM
come on theres nothing wrong with some dodgy loans!

That reminds me: payment is next tuesday or i'll break your legs. CAPICHE

elipson
20th April 08, 10:49 AM
not the legislature, not the courts, but the people.

The legislature IS voted by the people, correct?



We need a Functional senate and i think we should replace the GG with the head of it.
Bull fucking shit we do! We have a completely disfunctional and utterly useless Senate RIGHT NOW, and you know what? We get by just fine. How would scrapping it be any different than how the current system is right now? It's undemocratic, and its totally impotent. And yet, we manage to run our government fairly well. Why even bother having it when we have proven that we don't NEED it?

Zendetta
20th April 08, 12:24 PM
Do It Do It Do It Do It Do It Do It Do It Do It

ICY
20th April 08, 12:39 PM
A bill of rights won't expand or improve personal freedom.

Having an elected President won't make Australia more democratic.

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Shawarma
20th April 08, 12:45 PM
So, what would this mean with regards to all the Aussies running around in the UK and vice versa?

elipson
20th April 08, 01:31 PM
I agree with Cracky on this one.

They would be replacing one useless symbol with another useless, albeit closer to home symbol.

And I wasn't aware that australia currently had a lot of problems with human rights issues? The US has a bill of rights, and then they have Gitmo bay. Lot of fat good it did them.

Cullion
20th April 08, 01:44 PM
So, what would this mean with regards to all the Aussies running around in the UK and vice versa?

Hopefully it would make no difference at all. Although of course they'd have to make substantial changes to the organisation of their military as they'd no longer be loyal to the crown and could no longer count on the same level of military cooperation.

bob
20th April 08, 04:18 PM
Hopefully it would make no difference at all. Although of course they'd have to make substantial changes to the organisation of their military as they'd no longer be loyal to the crown and could no longer count on the same level of military cooperation.

Nice try, we stopped falling for that line after Singapore.

Cullion
20th April 08, 04:45 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any self-interest whether or not Australians want to remain subjects of the Crown. It won't make any difference to me what you decide to do. As the proportion of Australians with no British ancestry increases, there's going to be less of a cultural tie with the old homeland. You guys believe that electing a president will somehow make you freer or more democratic, be my guest.

bad credit
20th April 08, 07:05 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah, will changing Oz into a republic cut back on the rapacious post-apocalyptic biker gangs or the rampaging vigilante highway patrol officers?

I vote Chopper Read for King.

Truculent Sheep
20th April 08, 07:21 PM
It's all ultimately pointless squabbling anyway - the big turning point won't be a Republic or whatever, but rather when Britain and Oz just accept each other as they are now and once were, and, in doing so, themselves. At the moment, it's a thinly veiled carnival of hand-wringing, distrust and self-doubt on both sides.

Chopper would indeed make a good PM/GG/Emperor/President though.

munkus
20th April 08, 10:31 PM
I've read the constitution and no-where did I see rights to due process, fair representation, the right to trial by court of law blah blah blah its all set in precedents and individual cases and seperate acts - combine them.
The right to due process in courts - Arises from procedural due process in the court systems, although there is no right against self-incrimination.
The right to trial by jury - Section 80 of the Constitution
The right to fair legal representation - Dietrich v The Queen (1992) High Court ruling where the judges realised that a right to representation should, at the least, apply to serious offences. If a defendant is not represented and is then convicted, there would be doubts as to whether it was a fair trial and the decision would, more than likely, be overturned in an appeal court.

Rights in Australia are further protected by ratifying international treaties such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976, and there are others.
Although you are correct in saying these rights are scattered amongst legislation, common law, and the Constitution, a codifying act isn't really necessary. These legislated rights and implied rights have protected the rights of Australians to this point, and what evidence is there that suddenly these rights will be abolished/not enforced?

If Australia decides to draw up a Bill of Rights I think it will be a colossal waste of time and resources. It will have to be decided which rights will go on the bill, how are the needs of the State and the individual balanced, by what process can it be changed, how do Australians ensure they approve of the final bill, etc.

Regarding the creation of a republic; although I understand the symbolism, it is hardly necessary, is it? The queen has a degree of power over Australia, although she does not exercise it. Royal assent is given to all legislation, so having her as a symbolic figurehead does not detriment the country. It then becomes quite a process to establish a new system of government, with issues such as how much power will the leader have, how long will terms last, will there be a maximum amount of terms, will there be a system of checks and balances, will there be a separation of powers, and so on.

All in all I find it an exercise in trying to assert further independence, and to show to the world that we are not just an ex-dominion of England, but a fully established country in our own right with our own system of government. Ultimately there are no benefits to the creation of a Republic of Australia - the country is working well as it is, and the whole change would cost time and money that could be better spent.

Arhetton
21st April 08, 01:04 AM
^ john is that you?

I get the whole 'don't fix whats not broken' argument. I understand.

But the case you are making is exactly the case when old people make the mistake of not giving power of attorney to their kids. If they think 'hey I'm not dementing yet I don't need to give them power of attorney' but then they loose their fucking marbles they are fucked.

However if you sort out power of attorney before you lose your marbles, then when it happens, no worries.

This is exactly what happened to my granddad. His wife died, he demented, remarried, and some bitch stole all his money all because he didn't want to lay preperations for the future. Now he wants to move in with us lol.

Saying 'we don't need clear definitions of civil rights (that are clearly outlined for every man in the street) because there are no civil rights abuses going on in australia' - that to me is a silly argument. You'll be making that argument all the way up until a brown shirt searches your home without a warrant and locks you up in prison for having porn on your computer.

My whole agenda for civil rights is pretty much a counter reaction to the GWOT.

Something that scares me is the 'war on terror'. You can't have a war on a tactic. Its something that has killed less australians (and probably americans too), than I don't know, dogs or sharks have - or certainly car accidents. Heres some funny american & australia stats.

The line of argument that I have been using (prepare rather than react) can be shown historically in the context of terrorism that it is not a threat to our societies.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/FE3EED4BB4BCE497CA2570CF007458EB/$File/33020_2004.pdf

But this agenda is driving a move towards more invasion of privacy than anything else. It has changed the nature of detective work, arrests, interrogation, financial and medical privacy - and for what? Terrorism is less dangerous than you getting in your car to drive to work or go do the grocery shopping. If you want to be skeptical about something, really skeptical, it should be about the 'war on terror'. Weird how the bali bombing happened after aussie troops were sent to afganistan. Strange how the bombers released tapes saying that was why they attacked australians.

You know what affected me about terrorism? When I was using the trains, suddenly every single bin that was ever in a train station dissappeared. No more being able to dispose of rubbish. And what happened then? Train companies had to hire more people to walk around on the trains collecting rubbish people left on the seats. Fucking stupid.

Last week I read that 70 million dollars is being spent on an undercarriage guard box under the harbour bridge - 70 million dollars, to watch the bridge and protect against terrorist attacks.

You know if a terrorist had any brains, they would wait until summer, then a whole group of them could light bushfires around sydney and watch the city burn to the ground. How are you going to protect against that? That almost destroyed my house back in the 90's.

Anyway, yay civil rights, stupid government, god strike down the ugly, ugly queen.

munkus
21st April 08, 01:23 AM
^ john is that you?
Nope lol

I see where you're coming from in regards to impending restrictions on privacy; I had forgotten about that and it is something which I am concerned with. It would be relatively easier, though, to just update the Privacy Act, but we'll see how that plays out..

Could you elaborate further on your link between terrorism and the BoR? Are you saying that the war is giving the government an excuse to chip away at the rights of individuals? (Sorry if that seems confrontational, it's hard to word it otherwise)


Anyway, yay civil rights, stupid government, god strike down the ugly, ugly queen.
+ 1; she is so ugly. lol

Arhetton
21st April 08, 01:47 AM
you seem like you have some legal background, welcome to sociocide

socratic
21st April 08, 02:24 AM
Nope lol

I see where you're coming from in regards to impending restrictions on privacy; I had forgotten about that and it is something which I am concerned with. It would be relatively easier, though, to just update the Privacy Act, but we'll see how that plays out..

Could you elaborate further on your link between terrorism and the BoR? Are you saying that the war is giving the government an excuse to chip away at the rights of individuals? (Sorry if that seems confrontational, it's hard to word it otherwise)


+ 1; she is so ugly. lol

Uh, thanks to John Howard, they can now:

Potential for preventive detention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_detention): short term detention for named individuals: without evidence; and without criminal involvement; the detainee may be interrogated by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO); disclosing that an individual has been so detained or interrogated is, in almost all circumstances, a crime.

As in, they can detain you without cause, and you can't TELL ANYONE THEY'VE DONE IT. ASIO will then be along with the dogs shortly.


Significant restrictions on the right of any citizen to express certain opinions: including criticism, or "urging disaffection", of the sovereign, the constitution, the government, the law, or 'different groups'; exemptions may exist where the target of criticism is agreed to be 'in error'; exemptions appear to exist where the claim is that a feature of a group of people is in some way offensive to the mainstream of society; onus of proof of goodwill is on the defendant - the presumption is not of innocence.

That's right, there's actually a law against Sedition. They haven't really enforced it yet, but the laws are all there.

As for Gough Whitlam's government being dismisedd- I think that's a pretty fucking dirty tactic of the Opposition to simply veto the entire budget. "We didn't get in, so there'll be no effective government! Yay!".

Arhetton
21st April 08, 03:12 AM
you might want to reconsider those opinions you hold, if only for the main reason that torture and sensory deprivation has not given neither good quality nor good quantity of intelligence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Taxi_to_the_dark_side.jpg

socratic
21st April 08, 04:17 AM
You are right, they just do it for fun.

Watching your compadre get his lovejunk eaten by rabid wombats through soundproof glass and knowing you have to match his answers to questions wouldn't provide good quality / quantity information at all.

They should make me head torturer.

Especially when neither of you are US citizens or even involved with the US, right?

lant3rn
21st April 08, 04:26 AM
The legislature IS voted by the people, correct?



Bull fucking shit we do! We have a completely disfunctional and utterly useless Senate RIGHT NOW, and you know what? We get by just fine. How would scrapping it be any different than how the current system is right now? It's undemocratic, and its totally impotent. And yet, we manage to run our government fairly well. Why even bother having it when we have proven that we don't NEED it?

Just in Case some wakko gets elected and runs a disfunctional totally enempt government.

bob
21st April 08, 04:41 AM
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any self-interest whether or not Australians want to remain subjects of the Crown. It won't make any difference to me what you decide to do. As the proportion of Australians with no British ancestry increases, there's going to be less of a cultural tie with the old homeland. You guys believe that electing a president will somehow make you freer or more democratic, be my guest.

A Republic will not make Australia freer or more democratic. I don't think anybody with any brains on the pro- side is seriously pushing that argument. Electing a President would be the worst possible thing I could imagine. The president should be a at a remove from the political process.

Arhetton
21st April 08, 04:46 AM
yeah it would just turn into a celebrity contest rather than party politics

Yiktin Voxbane
21st April 08, 09:16 AM
Huge Ackman 4 pr3Z ?

elipson
21st April 08, 09:28 AM
Gitmo was pretty much necessary and perfectly acceptable. I am in favor for more violent and successful forms of torture for enemy combatants if it produces better results.

Can't tell if this is Sarcasm. If its not, torturing ppl doesn't work because they MAKE UP ANSWERS that you want to hear.


Just in Case some wakko gets elected and runs a disfunctional totally inept government.

That's what non-confidence votes are for. If someone was actually voted into power that was totally extreme and over the line, he would probably face a party revolt and forced to call an election.

lant3rn
21st April 08, 09:31 AM
Can't tell if this is Sarcasm. If its not, torturing ppl doesn't work because they MAKE UP ANSWERS that you want to hear.



That's what non-confidence votes are for. If someone was actually voted into power that was totally extreme and over the line, he would probably face a party revolt and forced to call an election.

lol you put too little faith in the party mentality.

Cullion
21st April 08, 01:06 PM
I don't think we should torture people even if it works, because it's barbaric.

Ryan Platts
22nd April 08, 02:34 AM
We should torture the Queen, though, for being non-Australian and most definitely non-Irish. I rest my case.

elipson
23rd April 08, 08:33 AM
lol you put too little faith in the party mentality.

I prefer to think I have a lot of faith in individuals.

Ryan Platts
23rd April 08, 09:13 AM
I prefer to think I have a lot of faith in individuals.

What!!! Then you have no faith in the people, the collective!! "Who are the Irish? The Irish working class"!!! Thank you James Connolly, you may have been part of a rebellion that had nothing to do with your own ideology, you may have been executed in a way which ensured that you were so revered that no-one bothered to find out what the hell you actually said, but at least you reminded socialists everywhere that......shit, sorry. Back on topic. Have you no faith in the power of THA PEOPLE??? Individualist capitalist pig!!! Worker's soviets are the only way forward!! None of this "faith in individuals" tripe, The Party reigns supreme!!!!!!!.......................yeah, sorry. Major brain meltdown. I still say that we should torture the Queen. Either that or exhume and torture Lloyd George, Edward Carson and Ian Paisley...wait he's not dead yet.....