Oceania Greens Senators booted out of parliament during Bush speech

Are you talking about that line "I'm to tired to punch you, so please run toward my fist?"


On the plus side, It was Baldrick who invented the time machine, so good things can come from the opressed masses.

 

Like stew.

 

And pie

 

and filth.


"Oi, Dennis, there's some lovely filth down 'ere!"

 

Even though this thread has derailed from its original topic, I still would like to add me 2 cents.

I watched the speech given by US President George W. Bush to the joint sitting of Parliament, and was utterly appalled, shocked, dismayed and disgusted by the antics from the two Green Senators; Bob Brown and Kerry Nettles.

They showed the height of rudeness and embarrased the nation on an international stage.

Yes, there is free speech, but there is also COURTESY. Courtesy for the speaker to finish their speech, courtesy to the person who is both Head of Government and Head of State of another country.

I sincerely hope that these two people, from the LOONY-LEFT loose their seats at the next election. Sadly, it doesn't look like they will, due to the unfair and stupid proportional system. In a direct election, they would not even stand a chance. Bob Brown represents the minority of minorities - Loony Left, Homosexual, Smallest State. Yet he can disgrace the country.... and that in turn demonstates that our system of government is broken.

 

I must say, it is a pleasure to have you back Gath. Stinky's been saying too many things I agree with of late, which has left me lost like a puppy with no playmate.

They showed the height of rudeness and embarrased the nation on an international stage.

They proved our governmental system is in a healthy state, because they were able to impart the views of a section of the society in the forum of parliament: surely the purpose of Democracy in the first place. That our Senators have the freedom to object to Bush Junior's horrific foreign policy, trade policy and economic policy only proves our governmental system is not yet as corrupt as perhaps other nations. Regardless of how much you agree/disagree with their viewpoints, you should acknowledge that they have the right to express it. Everyone - contrary to popular belief - does NOT agree and nor should they, and each individual has an equal right to voice that opinion: through themselves, or in this case, their elected members representing said views.

The Greens have a place, leave them be.

Yes, there is free speech, but there is also COURTESY.

I doubt a man who drops bombs on other nations at the drop of a hat has much care for courtesy. He'd of probably felt right at home with such affrontary, and at least a certain degree of empathy, as it reflects his rather glib attitude. That we all didn't fawn over him like his own sycophantic senate is a plus in our favour, no less.

Courtesy for the speaker to finish their speech, courtesy to the person who is both Head of Government and Head of State of another country.

Again, there are more important issues at hand then good manners Gath. They have every right to air their views. Bush is no citizen of our nation, and should be afforded no more or less then what is appropriate in the context of urgency, need, access and decorum. They had little other opportunity to confront His Royal Highness, nor any other opportunity that would of given coverage to the greviance of the Australian people. They gave a voice that others would work desperately to muffle. Good one 'em.

I sincerely hope that these two people, from the LOONY-LEFT loose their seats at the next election.

You make them sound like batman villians. Please, let us at least speak seriously, especially on such matters.

Sadly, it doesn't look like they will, due to the unfair and stupid proportional system. In a direct election, they would not even stand a chance. Bob Brown represents the minority of minorities - Loony Left, Homosexual, Smallest State.

Good. A majority has no special right to be overbearing. They may collectively have a final say, but individually each part is no more or less of the cohesive whole than any other. I'd be more worried in a world where the views and opinions of the environmentally conscious, socially aware, humanitarian Greens are censored, or even indeed, the views and opinions of any group (Even the bloomin' Socialist Alternative).

That is not Democracy, and as an aside, it is an affront to humanity that you single out homosexuals as some sort of deviant manifestation of your batman villian clique the "loony left". I'm sure a learned and experienced individual whose seen as much life as you would know that sexuality is utterly irrelevant to one's world view, and can be expressed differently in all sectors of society.

Yet he can disgrace the country.... and that in turn demonstates that our system of government is broken.

He did nothing of the sort, and in fact only proved the strength of our system. Who gives a damn what some ignorant hicks in the US think of a couple of our Senators? Most learned Americans would of appreciated the strength of diversity in our nation as did most Australians: and in doing so, Bob did not disgrace us, but honour our culture, our spirit, our individuality, and our unique diversity that makes our multi-cultural nation so special.

 

Who gives a damn what some ignorant hicks in the US think of a couple of our Senators?



Most learned Americans would of appreciated the strength of diversity in our nation as did most Australians

Oh, whew, glad I fit this category.




Anata baka?!

 

Don't worry, PoT, I will have some material over the next few days that you can sink your teeth into!

 

As I said, it's good to have you back.

Diversity of opinion and belief coupled with the freedom to express it are the two founding precepts that succour our Democracy, it is only serving our nation to induldge in both.

 

I doubt a man who drops bombs on other nations at the drop of a hat

Ah yes, of course, there was no build-up. It's not like it took months and months for the US and its allies to actually make a move and attempt to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive murderous dictator. But, yes, drop of a hat.

He's not a Batman villain, my dear Kane

 

It took more than a decade, as you know!

How many times did good 'ol Saddam thumb his nose at the left-wing lovin UN resolutions?

 

Ah yes, of course, there was no build-up. It's not like it took months and months for the US and its allies to actually make a move and attempt to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive murderous dictator. But, yes, drop of a hat.

I'm sure the Bush administration hadn't made up their mind about invading before all of that careful garnering of allies, and I'm sure the explored every possible avenue before choosing to have a fun little war, which in the end, is kinda of justified, cos like, war's been around for years anyway, and one day we'll have another War to end all wars, but until we do we might as well have fun and make with the killing and dying. It makes for good television.

He's not a Batman villain, my dear Kane.

Oh? But what about his sidekick, the "Man of Steel"?

 

Actually PoT is right in a sense, the NeoCons DID want to invade Iraq, even before GWB stole the election (ahem was elected), even before Sept 11.

Check out Paul Wolfowitz's writings... I forget the titles, but I think Stinrab knows about them...

I will have to look them up.

 

Wolfowitz has been advocating an invasion of Iraq for ten years. At least. Ten years.

Drop of a hat, indeed

 

As I said, it's good to have you back.

Diversity of opinion and belief coupled with the freedom to express it are the two founding precepts that succour our Democracy, it is only serving our nation to induldge in both.

Actually, freedom of expression really has nothing to do with democracy.

Democracy means the 'rule of the many'. It is basically 'mob rule' - the opposite of dictatorship. Which means that the collective decision of 51% can override and oppress the other 49%.

Therefore, if 51% of people decided to deny freedom of expression, then it would be taken away (thus democracy is not the best vehicle for freedom of expression to thrive).

Bear in mind I am talking about a 'pure' form of democracy rather than the muted version we are stuck with.

 

I suggest we prevent any communication problems by keeping "pure" doctrines in the political science class.

Current Democracy works BEST for the people when it operates in an informed and free society able to express a breadth and diversity of views and ideas, thus creatively improving the society via (albeit sometimes controversial) consensus.

 

How is it a consensus when one loony embarrasses all? (Bob Brown).

 

How many times did good 'ol Saddam thumb his nose at the left-wing lovin UN resolutions?

Why say those things, Gath? Why? If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't act like you do because I have to come in here and pwnz0rz you for saying stupid stuff.

Prove to me that the UN laws are "left wing loving", or your next post must contain the following text: "I, the Gatherer, made that comment in the blissful garden of ignorance, and since my knowledge of international law could be carefully inscribed on the back of a postage stamp, I feel it's only fair to humbly retract this statement as it really isn't true and doesn't even have validity as an opinion, lest Ender_Sai pwn me for saying it."

Now, japes and jest aside, let me steer you back on track on this. UN laws, especially about Iraq, were the end result of a lot of work by the government of former DCI/US Ambassador to the UN/President George Herbert Walker Bush, who also suggested the UN as the vehicle of future world relations in his "New World Order" speech in 1991. So, unless you're suggesting that the Father of the Twit is a lefty, your statement is based off a false premise. Similarly, since most of the UN laws were reactionary, they can hardly be linked to what I think many would agree is typically the progressive side of politics, n'est pas?

Wolfowitz has been advocating an invasion of Iraq for ten years. At least. Ten years.


Actually, it's Richard Perle that you're thinking of, but hey.

Wolfowitz has suggested the idea occasionally, but he's a protege of Perle and Perle has been saying it since the 1980's. However, if anyone <looking at P_o_T here > suggests that Bush is a neo-con I'll have to start on you like I did on Gath...

E_S

 

Wolfowitz has been advocating an invasion of Iraq for ten years. At least. Ten years.


Actually, it's Richard Perle that you're thinking of, but hey.

I was under the impression that it was both. Meh, I've been out of class for too long

 

Wolfowitz has certainly endorsed the idea in the past, but it's been Perle's agenda since the Iran-Iraq war, which he opposed. Remember, real neo-cons (and by that I mean those who are neoconservatives and not those who are falsely called as such, like Bush, by those who don't know what a neocon is but like the sound of the word) are highly moralistic, and former liberals. Perle, IIRC, used his role in Carter's administration to block grain exports to the USSR unless they lifted bans on Jews migrating to Israel...

E_S

 

Until I get my research together...

Ahem... here goes:

"I, the Gatherer, made that comment in the blissful garden of ignorance, and since my knowledge of international law could be carefully inscribed on the back of a postage stamp, I feel it's only fair to humbly retract this statement as it really isn't true and doesn't even have validity as an opinion, lest Ender_Sai pwn me for saying it."

 

Ah, I love FF Oceania!

The problem with the UN resolutions is enforcement.

Plainly put, if somebody on the UNSC's Permanent Five isn't willing to enforce the laws, they're doomed. Such is the implicit right of veto. When they want to work together - as they did in 1991 with Resolution 678 - they'll do just fine.

E_S

 

I don't want to derail this topic... is there are good thread about the United Nations in the Senate that I can post in?

 

I suggest we prevent any communication problems by keeping "pure" doctrines in the political science class.

Current Democracy works BEST for the people when it operates in an informed and free society able to express a breadth and diversity of views and ideas, thus creatively improving the society via (albeit sometimes controversial) consensus.

What a load of bull!

When you vote all you have is a handful of 'let's spend more of your money' hopefuls that get in on preference deals and popularity, not rationality! I certainly don't support the elected bureaucrat in my area.

And frequently we have 'very vocal' groups who make their views known to these elected bureaucrats - and through them decisions are made that completely goes against the wishes of the average taxpayer. Unfortunately the 'passive majority' just seems to take it unbridled.

In other words:

DEMOCRACY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

In your - albeit learned - but perhaps overtly cynical opinion.

Feel free to advocate a plutocracy of corporate powers-to-be in your next post however, I'd be interested to see the defined borders of whatever alternative you prefer.