🚀 go-pugleaf

Dean Hollister <dean@mushka.cx> wrote in message
news:381a610d.0@news.wa.apana.org.au...
> "Death" <somewhere@other.than.here> writes:
>
> >Yes, they suck. But, just for interest why would you vote
> >against the a preamble defined by a fucking bunch of lame
> >christians but vote for the republic that allows a 2/3 majority
> >of lame Christians a say so in the President.
>
> Yes, but you overlook that the 2/3 majority would also, in the majority of
> cases, require the opposition to support the nomination as well. If the
> Government of the time has 60%, they still need support from other parties
> in the parliament to get the nomination through.

If? So if the major parties get hammered, i.e they lose 40%
of seats then maybe we might have other politicians having a
look in. The one thing all these so called parties have
in common, that which will markout their choice, is
that they are all politicians.

>
> >The GG is the proxy of the Queen, the president will be the proxy
> >of two-thirds of parliment, the Queen is notoriously impartial
> >the parliment is not. At least with a directly elected president
> >the will of the majority, anyone could win, you almost guarenteed
> >in the 'politicians' republic however of getting a arse kissing
christian.
>
> But the powers of the President in the proposed model are largely
> ceremonial, as is the present GG. I will confirm now that I am an athiest,
> and my grounds for opposing the first two words of the preamble are that.

Largely? So the GG does some important things like signing
stuff into Law?

Oh, and you go to hell when you die. ;-)

>
> However, I can concede that the oaths required in the model are no better
> and are stupid. We DON'T have any religious references in our National
> Anthem, Coat of Arms, or Official Name. The oath of citizenship gives the
> choice of whether or not you include "God".

Clearly not multicultural inclusivity that we have come to expect
from government, I think we for good order, we should ask every
religious and cult (only in Oz mind) to nominate their own.;-)

>
> >Are you really an atheist? At least in the present system we did
> >get an atheist as GG, because the PM couldn't care or didn't care.
>
> Yes, I am an athiest. However, the only objectionable items on this I find
> in the proposal are the oaths of office for the president, PM and MP's.

Look Christians can believe whatever they like, I don't care much.
I do agree we don't need divisive language like those 'two' words.
But I somehow can't help feeling your missing my point, words
count little compared to the outcome from a selection process that is
filtered by politicians.

All the differing opinions of the people can not represented
by politicians, but they can be in another process where
all opinions are held equal through one citizen one vote.


No taxes without fair representation.
.
>
> Regards,
>
> d.
>