Just for the rabbits... no humans allowed. :D

[woodsmoke]

Ya know I was dons in the dungeons..............

and.........Matilda..............

I was going to volunteer to help her clear out the drek and she kind of plops her pink thighs onto a kind of chair thingy.......

and said...........

"Do your really think that all thos mostly men and sometimes women make a dam'ns bit of difference?

Then she flopped her tail onto a MRE and we shared some really nasty ice cream ready to eat........

just sayin .........

Linux had a "tea timer"............

and even Matilda uses it.

woodlikestheteatimersmoke

[Feathers McGraw]

Feathers, I am aware there are costs associated, even with just planning, but, as Premier Andrew' party (Labour) did not write the contract and the contract was rushed through by the Incumbent Napthine Administration (Liberal) in order to enact the contract, especially the pull-out compensation clause, prior to the known upcoming election to make sure the next party continued with the project. That behaviour is some serious messing with the wealth of all Victorians perpetrated by the Victorian Liberal Party. It needs to be them(Liberal party) who pay the compensation not the State.

I didn't realise that was what happened! What a dick move. Still, a contract is a contract. Maybe for big infrastructure projects some higher threshold should be required than half of the vote, since the duration and cost impact of the project has a much longer life than a single parliament. 4/5 year terms don't really encourage long term plannng of any sort anyway...

[Feathers McGraw]

Why do people here in the UK who want it to be a republic always claim that having a King/Queen such a bad idea, it's as if they think that the UK is still governed by them. It is not, it is governed by Parliament of elected politicians. The King/Queen of today has no say on what laws are created. They are just a figure head.

They are still the head of state and spend a huge amount of time meeting other heads of state, doing things on behalf of the UK. It may be comforting to believe that they don't have any real influence, but I think it's a bit naïve.

I don't have anything against our Queen (the person), just the idea of having a Queen in the first place. If we had an election now i might even vote for her, but we should have the right to elect our highest representative... leaving it up to luck is just not good enough.

[NickStone]

They are still the head of state and spend a huge amount of time meeting other heads of state, doing things on behalf of the UK. It may be comforting to believe that they don't have any real influence, but I think it's a bit naïve.

I don't have anything against our Queen (the person), just the idea of having a Queen in the first place. If we had an election now i might even vote for her, but we should have the right to elect our highest representative... leaving it up to luck is just not good enough.

So based upon your above comment (that I've highlighted in red) we should also get rid of the Prime Minister. After all we don't vote for someone to be the Prime Minister. What we do vote far is someone to represent us in Parliament and the party with the most members gets the run the Government with the leader of that party becoming Prime Minister.

I do agree that we should have Proportional Representation (PR) not that Alternative Vote thing that we had voted against a few years ago which is not the same thing. Even Nick Clegg said about Alternative Vote is a "Pathetic Little Compromise".

[Feathers McGraw]

So based upon your above comment (that I've highlighted in red) we should also get rid of the Prime Minister. After all we don't vote for someone to be the Prime Minister. What we do vote far is someone to represent us in Parliament and the party with the most members gets the run the Government with the leader of that party becoming Prime Minister.

Not sure you're being very fair there, it's a bit of a strawman argument. Our highest representative is not the prime minister, it's the queen. Our MPs didn't vote for the queen, and neither did we.

I agree that true PR would be far better than AV... but AV would still have been better than what we have now (and might even have been a stepping stone to true PR). It's a shame the lib dems didn't have enough influence to bring a vote on PR, but I expect it would have gone the same way.

[Simon]

Our highest representative is not the prime minister, it's the queen. Our MPs didn't vote for the queen, and neither did we.

True but in Star Wars episode 2 "Attack of the Clones", one of the scenes I didn't sleep through...

The Title Crawl
There is unrest in the Galactic Senate. Several thousand solar systems have declared their intentions to leave the Republic. This separatist movement, under the leadership of the mysterious Count Dooku, has made it difficult for the limited number of Jedi Knights to maintain peace and order in the galaxy. Senator Amidala, the former Queen of Naboo, is returning to the Galactic Senate to vote on the critical issue of creating an ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC to assist the overwhelmed Jedi...

They demoted the Queen to Senator -- which I found a bit odd -- because she had "term" in office? Who else found that to be George's 'Merica has a perfect system shining through? All political systems are flawed by the people we empower or appoint to represent us. I am inclined to believe the only perfect system (exists only on paper) is Anarchism. Anarchism is not random chaos, it is a form of self-governed voluntary institutions. Members wouldn't be elected into an office but more like conscripted. Public servant would mean exactly what it says, to serve the public and not yourself. Imagine if you will, placing a system of government that runs a lot like the Linux. No one entity owns it, supported by the public and those who truly desire to improve it, the majority of the public freely using the tools of the system and benefiting from following the better choices.

With that said.... vote LINUX for King of the World!

[Feathers McGraw]

Simon... I can't quite believe you managed to slot star wars into it, but well done! You win the conversation

[MoonRise]

Well, I can honestly say I've never seen a thread derail so many times and in different directions! WOW!!

Fascinating! as Spock would say!

[woodsmoke]

LOL LUV THIS PLACE!!

woodinawesmoke

[SteveRiley]

This...

What we do vote far is someone to represent us in Parliament and the party with the most members gets the run the Government with the leader of that party becoming Prime Minister.

has at least a whiff of representation to it, while this...

a hereditary monarchy in 2015

has none whatsoever. For that reason alone it seems reasonable to abolish the monarchy altogether. Why? Because this...

They are still the head of state and spend a huge amount of time meeting other heads of state, doing things on behalf of the UK.

makes no sense for a nation that would otherwise aspire to democratic principles. Not to mention -- how much public funding goes to maintain the monarchy?

---

you goys got it right when you realised that church/state separation is important (for religious people too, since it provides both freedom of and freedom from religion).

Alas, too many people in positions of power here are doing everything they can to eliminate that separation.

[Simon]

Steve I don't want to offend your sense of American beliefs but from what I see in the media there is no real separation of church and state in America. The media wants to know the candidate's religion. I recall many reports on Fox News about Obama being Islamic. Although in reality the man was raised by an atheist and stated he was Christian. It would seem to me they ask these questions and put this information there for voters to know who they should give the vote. If the US was truly separated, there should be a law in place to protect the privacy of the beliefs from the media. Mitt Romney ran and lost mostly due to his belief in the LDS (aka Mormon) or am I incorrect on that? It is difficult to nearly implausible that any country could ask their people not to vote based on personal bias over religious belief.

Oh BTW I just posted something similar to this on my Facebook the other day about God. Take a look.

[SteveRiley]

Steve I don't want to offend your sense of American beliefs but from what I see in the media there is no real separation of church and state in America.

You aren't offending me...you're confirming what I wrote. I, too, believe that the media (and, by extension, voters) place way too much significance on a candidate's religious persuasions. The only group more vilified in America than sexual child molesters are atheists. No professed atheist could ever win an election here.

Oh BTW I just posted something similar to this on my Facebook the other day about God. Take a look.

I don't have Facebook so I can't see your post.

[Simon]

Sorry, for those of you who don't care for SpamBook

Tell me Doctor, why did God give me cancer? When you ask this of me, you expect me to reply, "God didn't give you cancer". However the truth from my perspective is, "Yes, God gave you cancer". But do I honestly look like a guy who knows the motives of a universal omnipotent being such as God? Or did you mistake me for being God or directly related to him at some point? I mean to say, it is not like I invite God over for dinner and ask him how or why he does things.
I am also asked about my belief in God. I tell them, yes I can see an inherent order to the universe and I believe there is intelligent design, if you take the time to view it. This answer seems to upset both ends of the belief system with the atheist trying to convert me just as much as the zealot.
The atheists always seem to counter with, if God exists, why do good people, like me, get cancer? First, I don't know for a fact you are a good or bad a person. I try not to judge people on a moral scale, since my moral scale is slightly skewed. But since you asked my opinion, why I believe God gave you cancer. Entertainment value has to be my best guess. It is not like he looked down on you and found you worthy of sudden death. You would have been hit by a bus or a meteorite. No, he obviously gave you cancer to see how you would react and what humorous situations you would encounter... like asking your doctor why he gave you cancer.
The zealots seem to think -- unless I start spouting out their dogma -- I am telling them what they want to hear. No, this is not the case either. As I stated, I believe God gave you cancer to test your faith, not so you can convert your doctor to your religion. Let's examine your faith, since you are asking your doctor and not your religious adviser. I happen to believe in a God and a spiritual afterlife, but that's not good enough for our zealot. They want to know names and titles of deities, prophets, and how you got to know God.
At the end of the day, I go home more conflicted about people than I am about God. God gave an old fisherman lung cancer who smoked and drank a lot. The fisherman died of his lung cancer at the age of 56. His grandson became a doctor and has prevented several deaths from cancer. Yes, at the end of the day I am the guy who stops the cancer.
~~~Happy Birthday Grandpa!

[MoonRise]

Sorry, for those of you who don't care for SpamBook

Actually that all made sense to me Simon but then again, who am I to say or judge as well!

[Simon]

Now about these rabbits....

http://youtu.be/qM9YWm6T_hc