Most commented

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • JTZ says:

      12:19pm | 05/12/12

      I cant believe it was not mentioned but how many ppl remember Reagan star wars programme. It has been talked about since the days of the cold war. The missile interceptor programme was set up due to the large cost of funding the star wars programme. Thats why is was nicknamed the son of star wars.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

    • simonfromlakemba says:

      01:59pm | 05/12/12

      I do remember that, didn’t Bush want to put it into place?

    • Son of subotic says:

      01:12pm | 05/12/12

      I can’t believe it was not mentioned but I’m sure he was also nicknamed Son of Satan due to his good ol’ Born-Again right wing fundamentalist christian bigot wife Nancy’s insistence for having a clairvoyant on hand 24/7 in the Whitehouse.

      Mrs subotic hates it when I call the Reagans out like that.

      Hehehehehe….

    • gobsmack says:

      03:26pm | 05/12/12

      They should let down their tyres.

      That’ll teach ‘em.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      01:19pm | 05/12/12

      Excellent!  Getting value for my tax dollar at last!

    • ausspud says:

      11:03am | 05/12/12

      A death star built by the American’s,paid for by the Chinese.
      And will it be a Unionised worksite,if it is then I can see this on the news-
      “SUPREME EMPEROR PALPATINE SUFFERS MAJOR STROKE MANAGING DEATH STAR UNION WORKSITE. FORCE NO LONGER WITH HIM”.(not mine).
      Well heres the link I put up earlier this year.

      http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/02/building-star-wars-death-star-cost/

    • AdamC says:

      10:44am | 05/12/12

      I read once that, when Hitler realised that occupied Paris would fall to the allies, Hitler spitefully ordered his soldiers to destroy many of the great Parisian landmarks before they retreated. His officers did not carry out the order, presumably because, seeing eventual defeat as inevitable, they did not want to unreasonably antagonise the allies.

      It seems that Australian unions are responding in the same way Hitler did to their declining relevance and the likelihood of a hostile Coalition government being elected at the next election. That is, they are taking one last opportunity to wreck the place.

      This article mentions their latest, ridiculous demand:

      http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/actu-pushes-for-familyfriendly-flexibility-20121204-2atbw.html

    • Mouse says:

      01:05pm | 05/12/12

      I suspect that the unions want a time to come where employees dictate, when, where and how much they work as well as the hourly rate that they think they are worth. Bugger the employers, they just have to fund the whole thing. It seems that going are the days that the employer advertises for a job and you apply, knowing full well what is wanted and what you are going to be paid to do. Can’t be having that, can we!
      If, for example, the oldies in the old folks home normally have brekkie at 7am, well now because Jan & Carol have to drop their kids off at school at 8.30am, brekkie is now at 9.30am. Get used to it and don’t be so selfish as to complain. If you want brekkie, you will just have to wait until the workers have done their other stuff first!
      Sounds stupid? Yes, it does, doesn’t it!  :o)

    • K^2 says:

      12:41pm | 05/12/12

      Well they are run by the Australian Fabian Society, a socialist “think tank” that pretty much hand writes all their policy, so my guess would be “no” in response to your question “will they not be happy until socialism is upon us?”

    • Tim says:

      12:32pm | 05/12/12

      Modern Primitive,
      yep exactly like Tony Abbott and his socialist family policies. Damn Socialists.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      11:41am | 05/12/12

      Ffs, will they not be happy until socialism is upon us?

    • ibast says:

      02:55pm | 05/12/12

      fml.  Agree Isreal can blame itself for much (most?) of what goes on there.  I find it incredibly hypocritical that Zionist can take land off other people after having the same done to them in the middle of last century.

      I don’t, however, agree with the two state solution.  I think combining the two countries into a single non-secular state and giving everyone equal voting rites is the solution.

      Whilst ever there is a wall, real or otherwise, people will continue to claim that land on the other side of the wall is theirs and they will continue to throw rocks.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      02:06pm | 05/12/12

      @ fml,

      Yep, have to agree with you here.  Settling up illegal settlements and then screaming"victim” is a bit rich.  And the timing really shows this new building program is nothing short of an “up yours UN!”  I even like how the new settlements howl when the Palestinians refuse to buy goods from them.

      There is an old saying about how good fences make good neighbours but I’m not sure it’s applicable here.

    • simonfromlakemba says:

      01:55pm | 05/12/12

      You can see the payback coming from Israel for miles now Palestine got up in the UN.

      They might have to watch all the war crimes they commit.

      If Palestine continue with rockets whilst being in the UN, I’m afraid peace will never be achieved..

    • fml says:

      01:14pm | 05/12/12

      So Israel are illegally settling as much palestinian land as possible before negotiations for a two state solution.

      Defending yourself against Palestinian rocket attack is one thing, settling in palestinian land then claiming victimhood is another. A two state solution is the only answer and I doubt Israel would agree. I mean why would they when they can eventually occupy the whole area with no international repercussions.

    • AdamC says:

      09:32am | 05/12/12

      I thought this piece over at Fairfax’s Daily Life website was an interesting read:

      http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/five-reasons-why-women-say-they-arent-feminists-20121204-2asnw.html

      I cannot say I have noticed that lots of highly successful women have been disclaiming feminism, but, on reflection, it does not surprise me in the slightest.

      Ultimately, feminism is a doctrine based on a sense of group grievance. This sense of grievance is driven by the obvious, historical disadvantages faced by women and other disadvantages that supposedly persist in the present day. (Some of these alleged, contemporary disadvantages, such as the ‘female pay gap’ are based on little more than statistical misinterpretation and dogma.)

      In any event, a doctrine based on an assertion of inherited, unfair disadvantage is going to appeal especially to people who have not enjoyed the successful, easy life they feel entitled to. Women who have not met their career ambitions, or who struggle to balance work and family committments can blame (righlty or wrongly) notions like ‘patriarchy’ for their woes rather than admit their own limitations or simply acknowledge that life does not always go one’s way.

      Highly successful women therefore have little real incentive to buy into feminism, except to appear politically correct. So the obvious inference from the likes of Taylor Swift, and even Marissa Meyer, ceasing to assert their feminist credentials is that feminism, as a movement, has ceased to hold the politico-cultural high ground.

      I am not sure that is such a bad thing.

    • AdamC says:

      03:34pm | 05/12/12

      Tim, some feminists seem to think that, simply because a significant number of rich and powerful people are men, those run things to benefit other men. However, I see no reason to believe that. Most men do not think in the same way feminists do. They do not see fellow men as ‘gender buddies’ whose interests are to be prioritised ahead of those of women.

      Kat, I still believe that women face some issues in developed, western countries. However, you are right that we have come a long way, while other societies seem to have regressed to barbarism.

      Cel, workplaces should be expected to provide women with equal opportunities. It is also quite reasonable for governments and organisations to establish policies and programs to assist women in the workplace. However, this should only be done where these policies and programs do not unfairly disadvantage men or involve lavishing special benefits on women.

      Markus, I thought the tone of the article partially answered the author’s question. That sort of permanently-aggrieved attitude is a turn off.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      01:39pm | 05/12/12

      Mysteriously, the article has been removed.

    • Markus says:

      11:55am | 05/12/12

      Not much in the way of arguments from the writer to counter the 5 points is there, just a lot of patronising and excessive use of sarcasm.

      Funny that in her haste to disprove women who say they aren’t feminists, she demonstrated exactly why some are reluctant to claim so:
      “Sometimes it’s okay for us not to have a famous woman on our side, as nice as it would be.”
      Our side. Even the writer sees it as a two-sided movement - with, or against.
      Disagree with even a single of the common stances of feminism and you are immediately labelled an enemy of the cause.

    • Cel says:

      11:14am | 05/12/12

      I particularly like your second-last paragraph, @AdamC. I hadn’t thought about feminism as being born out of a sense of disadvantage, but it has made me think about my perspective on feminism and the way both male and females have related to me in the workplace.

      I’m an almost 30 female, and am fortunate to have attended schools and workplaces which treat males and females as equals. I have however worked briefly in one government department which had a strong sense of a ‘boys club’ among the executive level staff whom I was on an equal to. Whilst it frustrated me at times, I was realistic that this is not always the way of the world or even the department which I was working for. I wanted to be treated as an equal but I wouldn’t call this being a feminist.

      In the modern workplace I think respect for each individual regardless of gender, age and rank is important. And I do still appreciate the manners of gentlemen who hold the door or allow me to walk ahead of them, I hope these traditions never die out.

    • Kat says:

      10:44am | 05/12/12

      I don’t think there is much need for feminism in the well off West anymore. Sure, we should still be vigilant and call someone out when they say or do something against women and vice-versa for men. We have equal rights to employment and education, when we get abused and report it we get listened to.

      I think we need to start looking at the rights of women in other countries i.e. Afghanistan etc. (all of them, not just the middle-east but you know what I mean). In those countries women and girls can’t get jobs and go to school, or if they do they get shot.

      To me Western feminism sort of equals first world problems. We have fought the good fight and won and now we need to help others.

    • Tim says:

      09:55am | 05/12/12

      LOL at the author of that piece,
      I think she’s actually the one who doesn’t understand what modern feminism has become and why some women don’t want to be labelled with the “feminist” tag.

      Especially with number 3 in her piece. The people who rely on an apex fallacy whinging that rich, successful women don’t know what it’s like in the real world for the average woman. bahahaha.

    • subotic says:

      09:27am | 05/12/12

      Holy cryogenically frozen old buggers on ice, Batman!

      Walt Disney was born today in 1901.

      Cartoons & sweat-shop slavery would never be the same again….

    • tez says:

      01:14pm | 05/12/12

      Little Richard 80 today

    • Evalee says:

      09:04am | 05/12/12

      May I encourgae my fellow Punchers to do a little ‘paying it forward’ today?  One act - of kindness, attention or care for another human being.  So simple, so important.

      I have awoken with altruistic urges today and after reading the news, needed to encourage others.  We are ‘the people’.  We are ‘society’. 

      As the saying goes, “Be the change you want to see in the world.’

      I am doing my bit - who will join me?

    • subotic doesn't care says:

      10:05am | 05/12/12

      Be the change you want to see in the world

      But what if I want to see the world turn on religious & altruistic people?

      Just sayin…

    • Chris L says:

      08:38am | 05/12/12

      If the world were truly to end, being blowed up by a Death Star would be awesome!!!!!

      (spelling mistake was deliberate)

    • Chris L says:

      04:12pm | 05/12/12

      Every moment is a furry moment Mouse.

    • Mouse says:

      01:12pm | 05/12/12

      Sure it was ChrisL, sure it was!! lol
      Maybe you were just having a furry moment.  ;o)

    • ibast says:

      02:06pm | 05/12/12

      Avast means stop.  Which explains why there were so many naval accidents.  Why use one syllable, when you can use two?

      ibast was a username I made from jumbling the letters on a highlighter pen when I was creating a name for a forum 15 years ago.

      I do get the odd reply to IBlast.

    • subotic says:

      01:16pm | 05/12/12

      I wanted to have my User name as iBasterd, but they wouldn’t let me.

      I also tried for spambot, Ivixor BPhase Inducer, and Camel Toe Fashion God, but none of these seemed to please to the Mod Squad.

      Thus y’get boring old subotic me hearties. Aaaarrrrr…..

    • St. Michael says:

      12:46pm | 05/12/12

      To be honest, ibast, what’s on my mind is that every time I see your userid my brain defaults to shouting “AVAST!” or similar.  As in, “Avast, ye landlubbers, arrrrr,” or similar.  Sorry, but I have to confess that.

    • Gregg says:

      07:15am | 05/12/12

      We certainly know that we have a few weirdos in Australia and they reckon they will get 25,000 in the US and really anything is possible even if it might just mean a consideration.

      What they might have to consider is having the Chinese build it for them and do some leasing and they would probably be stupid enough to consider they would have full death control that way.
      Meanwhile, they are against other countries having anwhere near as much firepower as themselves.

      And then on deaths right now we have teenage soccer players in Holland killing a parent/linesman - http://www.news.com.au/world/teens-to-be-charged-over-linesmans-death-at-dutch-soccer-game/story-fndir2ev-1226530123282
      Why names should be supressed in that situation is quite questionable for they are really young adults and the least they deserve is to be named and shamed before they do some time.

    • Gregg says:

      07:09am | 05/12/12

      That’s pretty funny stuff acotrel and why you want to be pointy I suspect you have not appreciated what you point to yourself and what you claim Tony Abbott often uses is exactly what you are subscribing to yourself whilst John Howard’s claim is indicating that Julia Gillard got rolled as leader.
      Most leaders in that context might even resign rather than hang about without power to lead and it could be interesting for you to remember that it was on a party policy debate that Malcom Turnbull was replaced as leader and there was nought to do with religion about it.

      So you would have every vote in parliament a conscience vote eh! and should that also extend to independents looking at what the view was by their electorate in regard to which major party was favoured? or should we just rely on personal hatreds?
      That’s right, something like we have now!

      Are you going to blow some dough you have not got in putting your hat in the ring come election time?

    • Martin says:

      04:34pm | 05/12/12

      No Steve, the PM did win a victory because as you point out, Abbott was the more objectionable alternative; for the Independents apart from Bob Katter, for Adam Bandt, and for the millions of Australians who voted for the ALP whom Joan mysteriously forgot.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      02:34pm | 05/12/12

      @ Martin,

      “You’ve mysteriously forgotten the millions of Australians who voted for the ALP…”

      Ok.  Lets set this right.

      Current make up of the House of Reps will show you at a quick glance that the Opposition has more sitting members than the Government.  However, add in Bandt (Green), Oakshot, Windsor, Wilkie and Thomson and the Government has 76 seats to the Oppositions 74

      ALP 71 + Greens 1 + Ind 4 = 76.
      Lib/Nat 72 + Bob Katter + Slipper = 74

      And now the power dynamics;
      Bandt would never have formed a coalition with Abbot.  Abbott said “no carbon tax” and would most likely not to move from that position.  The really dumb thing is that Gillard could have said to the Greens, “join on my terms or join the opposition”.  They wanted to be in the tent and would have agreed.  Instead, the Green tail wagged the ALP dog.

      Windsor hates Joyce so he wouldn’t come on board either. 

      Oakshot has a predilection to power (witness his actions in NSW before he went Federal) so again, would not have joined Abbott unless Abbott had one more seat.  If he had 73, it might have swung him in behind Abbott. 

      Wilkie had an axe to grind with the Libs stemming from his war with the Howard Government so again, no possibility to join with Abbott.

      So no, Gillard did not win a stunning victory, she was the least objectionable alternative from their points of view.  Gillard then tore up her agreement with Wilkie when she tried to poach Slipper and of course, the Carbon Tax which will be the nail in her political coffin come the next election.

    • TimB says:

      02:27pm | 05/12/12

      ‘Good luck with your fantasies, Steve. I prefer facts. ‘

      You mean you prefer your fantastical interpretation of the facts. As opposed to the common sense intepretation that intelligent people use.

    • Martin says:

      02:15pm | 05/12/12

      Good luck with your fantasies, Steve. I prefer facts.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      01:06pm | 05/12/12

      @Martin,  at the risk of feeding the troll,  Abbott did indeed win leadership by one vote when he challenged Turnbull for the leadership.  After the last election, Abbott put the leadership up for grabs and was re-elected unopposed.  That means, by more than one vote.  Timelines will kill you every time.

      The Gillard vote you are talking about might be on her initial stance to vote FOR Palestine become an observer state in the UN.  Instead, she had the vote changed to Abstain.  It had nothing to do with her position as leader. 

      However, Christmas is coming and Santa might bring a new PM yet….

    • Ben C says:

      12:56pm | 05/12/12

      @ TimB

      I know, but it’s irresistible.

    • TimB says:

      12:22pm | 05/12/12

      @ Ben, don’t bring logic and common sense into this. AASQ/Martin and all his alter egos are allergic to such things. Watch him simply repeat his same meaningless garbage ad nasuem instead.

    • Martin says:

      11:20am | 05/12/12

      You’ve mysteriously forgotten the millions of Australians who voted for the ALP, Joan. Funny about that. And Abbott had just as much of a chance to convince the Independents, but he blew it.

    • Ben C says:

      10:10am | 05/12/12

      @ Martin

      Let’s put this into context: When was the last time the Coalition had a leadership challenge, and when was the last time Labor had a leadership challenge?

    • Joan says:

      09:41am | 05/12/12

      Martin - It was Oakeshot and Windsor who pushed her over the line and her No Carbon Tax doublecross will not be forgotten. And it will be payback time in Windsor and Oakeshott electorates come 2013 election - you bet.

    • Martin says:

      09:15am | 05/12/12

      Wrong, Joan. The PM won the last election. It was Abbott who took the Opposition straight to the Opposition benches. Do try to keep up.

    • Martin says:

      08:53am | 05/12/12

      Abbott won his last challenge by one solitary vote.

    • Joan says:

      08:41am | 05/12/12

      Martin: Just shows how bad Labor pollies are,  that the best they have to offer is Gillard who knifed her way to the top,  whose No Carbon Tax doublecross will not be forgotten,  -  Gillard as good as it gets for Labor. Gillard said Labor had lost it`s way and looks like she`s got it back on track straight to Opposition benches.

    • TimB says:

      07:59am | 05/12/12

      ‘Abbott won his by one solitary vote. ‘

      No AASQ, Abbott was last re-elected unopposed. That’s unanimous support.

      PS- Gregg was speaking about the PM’s recent backdown on Palestine where she was most definetly outnumbered, not the leadership challenge. If you’re going to throw up meaningless figures, at least make sure they’re at least halfway related to the point being made.

    • acotrel says:

      07:33am | 05/12/12

      @Gregg
      ‘Are you going to blow some dough you have not got in putting your hat in the ring come election time?’

      That is not part of my current marriage contract.

    • Martin says:

      07:31am | 05/12/12

      The PM won her last challenge by about 70 to 30. Abbott won his by one solitary vote.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:57am | 05/12/12

      New job next Monday!  Super excited.

      I think a Death Star would be a very American thing to do.  It is the ultimate expression of “all the eggs in one basket”.

      The Empire, even after the loss of the second Death Star and Vader’s flagship (the “Super Star Destroyer”), was still far superior in terms of troops and firepower than the Rebels.

      Problem is, they lost all their best and brightest.  Schematics suggest (IIRC) 30,000 people were stationed on the Death Star; and those would have been Palpatine’s best and brightest.  The next best lot would’ve been on the great floating triangle.

      No government would survive such a massive culling of its elite.

    • Revenge Of The subotic says:

      02:15pm | 05/12/12

      Lisa Simpson: Comic Book Guy, have you seen our mom?

      Comic Book Guy: Ohh, a complete list of things I have seen or not seen is available on my blog. Your mother is on the not seen list, along with a Star Wars film that was only good since the first one. And even that has been ruined by CGI additions… Bravo George…

      [claps]

    • Tim says:

      02:03pm | 05/12/12

      Hey,
      they better make sure that it has a massive design flaw so it can easily be blown up by the enemy.

      Especially with all those troops and assets on it, wouldn’t want it to be a secure facility or anything.

    • Joel M-J says:

      01:34pm | 05/12/12

      @ St. Michael, that does sound logical.

      According to Wookiepedia though, the 501st was maintained as an all Jango Fett Clone unit. It also states that veterans of the Clone War were still in senior Stormtrooper rolls right up into Episode IV and V. Not sure about VI.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      01:10pm | 05/12/12

      “Tartan Cruisers”?  When they hit light speed, do they go plaid?  (Space Balls, the Movie)

    • St. Michael says:

      12:44pm | 05/12/12

      @ Joel M-J: A big part of the reason cloned troopers were phased out in favour of ‘ordinary’ men and women was the clones’ lifespan: George Lucas apparently decided to steal from “Blade Runner” on this one, but clones have a very short lifespan; they “wear out” a lot faster than regular natural-born humans do, so regular troops were seen as a long-term improvement.  The clones were largely used because the Republic couldn’t hope to get a full army together fast enough to go toe-to-toe with the CIS’s droid armies.

    • Baloo says:

      12:35pm | 05/12/12

      I’d say clones can take different paths che, some might have been given better training and equipment.

      I’m not sure a death star would be great for the Earths orbit, or gravity, or whatever. What I want to see is orbital drop pods first.

    • Joel M-J says:

      12:23pm | 05/12/12

      @ Chris L, In that case, we’ll need to upgrade to the newer versions smile

      @Che,

      Yes that is correct, but the Clones were based off of Jango Fett, a very intelligent and pragmatic Mandalorian Warrior. This would make them of a very high quality.

      Early on in the Civil War though, the empire began to introduce new clone templates, as it was decided to be too risky to have an entire army sourced by one template (Kamino Rebellion).

      They also started enlisting naturally born men as well.

    • Joel M-J says:

      12:22pm | 05/12/12

      @ Chris L, In that case, we’ll need to upgrade to the newer versions smile

      @Che,

      Yes that is correct, but the Clones were based off of Jango Fett, a very intelligent and pragmatic Mandalorian Warrior. This would make them of a very high quality.

      Early on in the Civil War though, the empire began to introduce new clone templates, as it was decided to be too risky to have an entire army sourced by one template (Kamino Rebellion).

      They also started enlisting naturally born men as well.

    • TimB says:

      12:14pm | 05/12/12

      As I attempted to post last night (when today’s open thread went up prematurely), and again this morning, I heartilly endorse any and all Death Star plans. We need to curtail this unwarranted Alderaanian aggression at all costs.

      The real problem with the Empire wasn’t the people they lost at the Battle of Endor (Thrawn and Pellaeon later proved that), but rather the fact that after it’s leadership was decapitated, it split into more squabbling factions than an ALP caucus meeting.

      And of course the New Republic had Wedge Antillies. The Imperial Remnant didn’t stand a chance smile

      @ Che, the clonetroopers were slowly replaced by enlisted men and conscripts as the Empire consolidated power.

    • che says:

      11:46am | 05/12/12

      I thought all the storm troopers were clones? How can they be the best and brightest when they are all the same?

    • Chris L says:

      11:25am | 05/12/12

      @Joel M-J - Tartan cruisers were replaced with the Carrack Light Cruiser and the heavier Lancer Frigate.

      According to Wookieepedia they were even used during the Clone Wars.

    • Joel M-J says:

      10:48am | 05/12/12

      Maybe the U.S could start off small to begin with. Maybe a couple of Imperator-class Star Destroyers, accompanied by Tartan Cruisers for Air Defense.

      Not to forget the 1000’s of Squadrons of Tie Fighters, Tie Bombers, and Tie Interceptors.

      God I love Star Wars.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:22am | 05/12/12

      @Jeremy, I bow to your superior knowledge!

      The first Death Star is depicted in various sources of having a crew of 265,675, as well as 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 30,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 180,216 pilots and support crew.[4] Its hangars contain assault shuttles, blastboats, Strike cruisers, land vehicles, support ships, and 7,293 TIE fighters.[5] It is also protected by 10,000 turbolaser batteries, 2,600 ion cannons, and at least 768 tractor beam projectors.[5] Various sources state the first Death Star has a diameter approximately 161 kilometers.[4][6] There is a broader range of figures for the second Death Star’s diameter, ranging from 160 to 900 kilometers.[7][8] In the Disney attraction, Star Tours: The Adventures Continue, guests can travel inside an uncompleted Death Star during one of the randomized ride sequences.

      (From Wiki, and that’s probably the best source we’ll get quickly).

    • Peter says:

      10:13am | 05/12/12

      At least one of you regulars actually has a job.  Can you find Tim B one?

    • Jeremy says:

      09:18am | 05/12/12

      I thought best estimates put the Death Stars total crew and manpower at about 250,000?
      But, maybe if there was a Death Star we could sell the America all that uranium we’re sitting on, instead of India.

    • acotrel says:

      07:31am | 05/12/12

      I’m almost jealous.  I’d love a new job, but I cannot stand the thought of enduring more soul-destroying bullshit.

    • acotrel says:

      05:07am | 05/12/12

      I suggest that when a ploitician joins a political party and pre-commits to always vote in line with the majority on all issues, it is an obscene perversion of democracy.  It a politician ELECTS on occasion or even often to vote with the views of the inner sactum in mind - that is one thing, but they are in parliament to represent my views as a voter, not to be dictated to by party leaders. Tony Abbott often uses the commiephobia based jibe that ‘we are not stalinist’ when there is dissension within his LNP.  His mentor John Howard made the claim that ‘Julia Gillard has no authority’.  I would point out that we live in a liberal democracy, not an authoritarian dictatorship.  Enforcing pre-commitment for politicians to always vote with the majority, empowers the wrong people.  The catholic church has authority, and if our goverment change s in 2013, could become the power behind the throne.

      Vote #1 INDEPENDENT
      And make every vote in parliament a conscience vote.
      Empower the individual and not vested interests.

      Or perhaps change the laws about authoritarianism in a democracy ?

    • Jtz says:

      06:39pm | 05/12/12

      The funniest part about acotrel comment is in the past he has added the line, make sure the independent puts labor second on their ballot paper and also will support labor. So what type independent are you talking about acotrel. Do tell.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      12:44pm | 05/12/12

      @acrotrel, you talk about “free will” for your elected representative, giving them the ability to vote as they feel their electorate would want them to vote (after all, then member is the electorates proxy) or as their conscience dictates.  You then bad mouth Tony Abbott for this remark “we are not Stalinist” without putting it into context.

      He remark concerned Liberal and National members being free to “cross the floor” if they believed in the cause.  While the leader might not like it and their fellow party members might not like it, they are allowed to do so.  Not encouraged, but allowed.  Not Stalinist.

      The ALP on the other hand has a very strict policy on those who cross the floor for other than a conscience vote.  They are automatically kicked out of the Party and must spend their days on the cross benches.  They do not get re-endorsed at the next election and they leave politics unless they go Independent.  Very, VERY Stalinist. 

      And how prey tell will the Catholic Church be the power behind the throne when Abbott becomes PM?  Not all Lib and Nats are Catholics (some of the ALP are though….) and, being free to cross the floor, they can undo any Machiavellian scheming that the evil Cardinal Richelieu-Pell could come up with.  Have the ALP cut their ties (funding and otherwise) to the unions if you want untainted legislation. 

      C’mon Acro…. sing it with me…...(1871 version a great tune but tough to dance to….)

      No saviour from on high delivers
      No faith have we in prince or peer
      Our own right hand the chains must shiver
      Chains of hatred, greed and fear
      E’er the thieves will out with their booty
      And give to all a happier lot.
      Each at the forge must do their duty
      And we’ll strike while the iron is hot.

      and don’t forget the chorus…

      So comrades, come rally
      And the last fight let us face
      The Internationale unites the human race.

    • ibast says:

      09:01am | 05/12/12

      Yes, I believe our parliamentary system is corrupted by the fact political parties are allowed to be formed in the lower house.  Particularly those that punish those crossing the floor.  It is, however impossibly to regulate that, so the next best thing is to have true independents in control of the upper house. 

      The best working parliament we’ve had in Australia is when the Democrats had control of the upper house.  They were a true democratic centrist party, ever without the boganish slogan.

      Maybe Kev and Mal can get together and bring some order back to the working of Federal parliament, that has been missing for over 10 years now.

    • Anubis says:

      08:36am | 05/12/12

      Maybe. on the basis of your comment, @acotrel you should give up your blind allegiance to the Labor Party. Labor is the party that will evict a member from the party if they cross the floor. So you are happy with the unions being the authority and Labor being puppets.

      I don’t for a minute believe that you would support people voting for Independents (except for the fact that it is just the independents that are keeping your beloved Labor in Government)

    • acotrel says:

      07:28am | 05/12/12

      @TimB
      I’m not a member of the ALP.  I joined their forum, but I’m not permitted to become a politician.  My wife would sack me, and I’ve got my priorites right.

    • TimB says:

      07:03am | 05/12/12

      Resign your ALP membership Acotrel, and then people might start taking you seriously.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter