Senator Hanson is at it again – wanting to rid the country of Moslems and it is her right to express her views. However it is also my right to express my opinion and I consider that the greatest threat to Australia is Ms Hanson herself with her ridiculous views on banning everything she doesn’t like.
Just as well she wasn’t in power a few years ago when the IRA was in full flight or she would have tried to ban all Irish migration and then where would we be – where would I be?
Mike Baird’s move – not to look after his family as he claimed, but to a top executive job at NAB bears out the rule – it’s not what you earn in Parliament, it’s the contacts you make. We see it now and over the years we have seen it often as top Parliamentarians leave loudly protesting almost without exception “I want to spend more time with my family” and then they move into top jobs. Why do they bother with the disclaimers or is it that they are constitutionally unable to tell the truth?
What a silly, silly woman is Pauline Hanson. On her reckoning she would be a fan of Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hirohito who would claim that they “put their country first” and gave us the Holocaust, gas chambers, Stalags and death in unimaginable numbers. But we must not treat her like the silly woman she is – she is dangerous and woe betide us if she gets any more power.
Some people can’t rid themselves of their bias, can they? Why does Coalition put developers before public? SMH 20 Nov. – a perfectly reasonable question but then the writer falls back on prejudice about relocating Cranbrook or the Kings Schools or a few other private schools .. ….used for intensive housing.
Does the writer have a big block of land that could be resumed together with neighbours’ blocks, for state reasons such as schools? How would they feel if this happened? The land that most of the private schools are on was acquired many, many years ago by supporters for the purpose now held. It was developed by those same supporters, maintained by those same supporters and does not attract govt funding for the facilities. Check it out or ask some of the parents who work so hard to support their schools, or follow their consciences; or simply choose which school they will send their young people to.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the SCG Trust in their actions about the “short dress” at Randwick Races in the Members Stand recently, I absolutely disagree with the stupidity of one of the correspondents to t he SMH who claimed if “she were a hick from wherever wearing a short tacky dress from Kmart” She further raised my ire with her remarks “not only is she a corporate lawyer .. her father a platinum member of the SCG Trust”.
Does this correspondent suggest that you should take along your invoice when you attend the SCG to show that your dress was not “from Kmart” and does she also suggest that there are different rules for a corporate lawyer.
What an amazing view in the year 2014 not only about where you buy your clothes (Kate Middleton supposedly shops on High St) but to suggest that a “lawyer” is above the rules when lawyers regularly come at the bottom of the list of respected occupations.
Wake up lady from Newport. Come into the real world.
I have never understood or appreciated practical jokes (the Aust DJ affair). I have never participated in playing a practical joke on anybody to make that person appear stupid. Practical jokes are of necessity based on the ability of one person to deceive another with the intention of making the deceived person look silly. And that’s what I can’t understand. If you believe a person, if you have no reason to think that the person is a liar – why is it amusing or clever for the joker to convince you of a wrong situation? That’s not clever, the victim is not silly, the perpetrator is simply a liar and not to be believed in the future. And that’s practical joking.