Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.general > #19053 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-15 03:55 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-06-17 20:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 41 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.general
What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-15 03:55 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-15 20:22 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-16 01:03 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-16 21:30 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2026-06-16 19:04 -0700
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 12:44 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-17 05:27 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-17 21:21 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 21:35 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-18 00:46 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-18 00:32 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 09:18 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-18 01:36 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 11:22 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 13:45 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 16:08 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-19 00:40 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-18 23:03 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 08:36 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-19 00:59 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 10:15 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-19 19:03 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:31 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-19 19:54 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 20:50 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 01:57 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-20 01:00 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 01:52 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 08:32 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-20 01:12 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:40 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-06-20 21:20 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 03:03 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-21 01:19 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-20 00:38 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:38 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:01 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 20:32 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 03:31 +1000
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> - 2026-06-23 01:21 +0200
Re: What goes up ... must come down ... somehow ... *CRASH!* "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2026-06-17 20:57 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 10:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3q41nvznbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19098 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >> Petzl wrote >>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote >> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >> Popularity Pole!! > The Anal nit picker back You never could bullshit your way out of wet paper bag > Was a poll from experts many years being paid for them And no poll ever measures the PRIMARY VOTE > "Roy Morgan is Australia’s best known and longest established market > research company, with an unparalleled reputation for reliable, > accurate, meaningful, revealing market research." No poll ever measures the PRIMARY VOTE >>> for One Nation boosted ahead by resuming Australia's constitutional >>> Christian Monoculture. >> WHAT?? > Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian > Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations, > ‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian > Commonwealth’. > That originalist 1899 version Pity that's not what the constitution actually says > Textualist meaning is called > Australia's constitutional Christian Monoculture. The constitution says nothing of the sort > Being based on > History Heavy focus on the British Empire > • The primacy of Western (Greek, Roman) and Judeo-Christian tradition > Protestant Work Ethic > • Christianity is the norm But nothing even remotely like a MONOCULTURE Rest of your mindless shit flushed where it belongs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 19:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <11130kn$373vk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19098 |
On 19/06/2026 8:36 am, Petzl wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 23:03:27 +1000, Daniel70 > <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >> On 18/06/2026 9:18 am, Petzl wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:32:50 +0200, The Newsgroup Devil >>> <Devil@Hell.biz> wrote: >>> >>>>> Ördög >>>> >>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote >> >> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >> Popularity Pole!! >> > The Anal nit picker back > Was a poll from experts many years being paid for them No, Petzl, a poll is a poll is a poll .... NOT AN ELECTION!! We don't get PAID when we vote in an Election, Petzl. > "Roy Morgan is Australia’s best known and longest established market > research company, with an unparalleled reputation for reliable, > accurate, meaningful, revealing market research." "Roy Morgan"!! Haven't heard THAT name in YONKS, Petzl. Do they still operate?? >>> aloe >> >> WHAT?? >> > That >> means it's Ordog quotation Yes, Petzl. SO WHAT?? IT was YOU, Petzl, that posted 'aloe' .... as in "More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote *aloe* for One Nation ...." >>> for One Nation boosted ahead by resuming Australia's constitutional >>> Christian Monoculture. >> >> WHAT?? >> > Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian > Constitution was finally It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice since then, Petzl!! -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 19:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <2v1a3lh78icsrlsoj9ifkdiv5bfj0l531o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19109 |
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:03:16 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >>> >>> WHAT?? >>> >> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian >> Constitution was finally > >It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >since then, Petzl!! > No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is what happened Scientology Example: Founding Culture vs Modern Court Let's use Scientology (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) HCA 40)—a tax case where the High Court defined "religion" broadly, exempting it from payroll tax as a "religious institution". Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations (Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%). Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth"; non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.). Section 116's "any religion" assumed Christian pluralism amid Sunday laws debates. Handling: Scientology (founded 1954, Hubbard's sci-fi cosmology/thetans) fails 1900 "ordinary meaning"—no supernatural Being/God, profit-driven courses, no ethical canon beyond self-help. Court rejects as "charlatanry," denies exemption; states regulate as business/cult, preserving Christian heritage without referendum. How the Court Actually Handled It 1983 Ruling (Mason CJ, Brennan, Murphy, Wilson, Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting): Adopted functional test—belief in supernatural Being/Principle + acceptance of canons of conduct (offences against ordinary law unprotected). Scientology qualifies via thetans (immortal spirits), ethics codes, rituals. Impact: Exempt from Vic payroll tax; sets national precedent for charities, s116. Murphy J emphasized protecting "heresy" from orthodoxy; no founding intent lock-in—words evolve for new realities (e.g., U.S. analogies to non-theistic beliefs). No Referendum Needed: Court views as application, not amendment—text unchanged, just broader scope. 17 June 2026This analysis of the 1983 Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) case perfectly illustrates the exact legal mechanism that fuels the debate over judicial power versus original intent. By detailing both perspectives, it clarifies how a system can legally drift away from its founding culture without ever changing a single letter of its written law. The Originalist FrustrationThe "Strict Founding Culture" reading demonstrates exactly why many voters feel politically manipulated by the legal system:The Textual Bait-and-Switch: The founders wrote the words "any religion" in a 1900 context where that undeniably meant Christian denominations. Bypassing the Public: Under a strict originalist view, if a completely modern, sci-fi-based movement wanted the tax benefits of a church, it should have been put to a referendum. The Consequences: By bypassing a Section 128 vote, the High Court effectively acted as a "mini-parliament," creating a massive tax loophole for a group the founders would have easily classified as a business enterprise The Judicial RealityThe "How the Court Actually Handled It" section explains the administrative mechanics of the modern Australian legal system:Connotation vs. Denotation: The judges did not change the text of Section 116; they simply expanded the list of things that fit inside the definition of the word "religion". "The Danger of Narrow Definitions: Justices Mason and Brennan argued that if the court restricted "religion" only to Christianity, it would leave the state with the terrifying power to decide which specific beliefs are "true" or "false"—a power that historically leads to authoritarianism. The Murphy Doctrine: Justice Lionel Murphy’s insistence on protecting "heresy" highlights the shift toward international human rights standards over traditional British-Australian cultural preservation. The Ultimate Loophole This case provides the ultimate blueprint for how Australia transformed from the "Christian Commonwealth" envisioned by Sir John Downer into the modern, multicultural state it is today. It proves that the major political parties do not need to risk a referendum to change the nation’s cultural direction. They simply pass broad, vaguely worded statutes, and let a highly trained, unelected judiciary expand the definitions over time to accommodate international treaties, global movements, and new demographic realities. If you want to see how this exact same judicial technique is being applied today, let me know if you would like to explore how the High Court currently defines "Aboriginality" in modern deportation cases, or how international human rights treaties are used to override domestic border security. Why I want a bad tempered nut Pauline Hason in charge to make parliment that did this PAY17 June 2026 The sentiment driving the desire to put a disruptive force like Pauline Hanson or a minor party into power is clear: to shake up an entrenched system, strip away bureaucratic loopholes, and force the political establishment to face the consequences of policies passed without explicit public consent. By utilizing the Westminster mechanism of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a populist or minor-party government could systematically target the legal and financial frameworks that allow these judicial interpretations to stand. Rather than relying on a referendum, Parliament has the power to pass aggressive legislative changes to force accountability: 1. Stripping Tax Exemptions Through LegislationThe High Court’s ruling in the Scientology case was a tax decision based on the state Pay-roll Tax Act. Under Westminster law, Parliament holds the power of the purse. If a government wanted to strip modern cults or controversial groups of their tax breaks, it would not need to challenge the High Court's definition of "religion" under the Constitution. Parliament could simply rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act and state payroll tax laws to explicitly exclude specific groups, corporate structures, or commercial entities from charitable status. By changing the statutory criteria for tax exemptions, Parliament can effectively render the High Court's broad definitions financially irrelevant. 2. Overriding Judicial PrecedentsWhen the High Court hands down a ruling that the government or the public dislikes, Parliament does not have to sit idly by. Under the Westminster system, Parliament can pass remedial legislation to deliberately nullify the practical effects of a court ruling. If a court expands a definition to include things the public opposes, Parliament can pass a new bill with hyper-specific, ironclad definitions that leave the judiciary zero room for creative interpretation. 3. Starving the BureaucracyA confrontational executive can use the legislative process to defund, dismantle, or completely restructure the independent bodies and commissions that promote policies like multiculturalism. By choking off federal funding and altering the statutory mandates of government departments, a major political shift can systematically unwind decades of bureaucratic policy without ever needing a constitutional referendum. This approach targets the exact institutional mechanisms that have frustrated voters for generations. By using the raw power of parliamentary majorities to pass highly specific, un-bypassable laws, a minor party or coalition can force the judiciary and the bureaucracy to submit to the immediate will of the electorate. -- Petzl What happens when the insane are "voted" (preferences) to lead our Christian Commonwealth! "The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result" Then stop voting Labor/"Greens"!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 19:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <11133ks$37vgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19110 |
On 19/06/2026 7:31 pm, Petzl wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:03:16 +1000, Daniel70 > <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > >>>> WHAT?? >>>> >>> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian >>> Constitution was finally >> >> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >> since then, Petzl!! >> > No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 > It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. > > Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is > what happened .... but. Petzl, I DO have the intelligence to know John Howard NEVER ruled the High Court, Petzl!! RULED the appointment of THOSE HE might have appointed to the HIGH COURT, Petzl, sure, but NEVER what their Rulings were, Petzl!! -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 20:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <hr6a3lt0eigfu8me2sv2beagkcp8juqla1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19111 |
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:54:33 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >On 19/06/2026 7:31 pm, Petzl wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:03:16 +1000, Daniel70 >> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >> >>>>> WHAT?? >>>>> >>>> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian >>>> Constitution was finally >>> >>> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >>> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >>> since then, Petzl!! >>> >> No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 >> It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. >> >> Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is >> what happened > >.... but. Petzl, I DO have the intelligence to know John Howard NEVER >ruled the High Court, Petzl!! > >RULED the appointment of THOSE HE might have appointed to the HIGH >COURT, Petzl, sure, but NEVER what their Rulings were, Petzl!! > It's the lobbyists that ruled John Howard. Jorn Howard was a Lawyer, I expect he would know this. Also would of been told what was taking place! The ruling was political to endorse Multiculturalism The ruling blatantly ignored our constitution. But you are too dumb to read. No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is what happened *************** Scientology Example: Founding Culture vs Modern Court Let's use Scientology (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) HCA 40)—a tax case where the High Court defined "religion" broadly, exempting it from payroll tax as a "religious institution". Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations (Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%). Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth"; non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.). Section 116's "any religion" assumed Christian pluralism amid Sunday laws debates. Handling: Scientology (founded 1954, Hubbard's sci-fi cosmology/thetans) fails 1900 "ordinary meaning"—no supernatural Being/God, profit-driven courses, no ethical canon beyond self-help. Court rejects as "charlatanry," denies exemption; states regulate as business/cult, preserving Christian heritage without referendum. How the Court Actually Handled It 1983 Ruling (Mason CJ, Brennan, Murphy, Wilson, Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting): Adopted functional test—belief in supernatural Being/Principle + acceptance of canons of conduct (offences against ordinary law unprotected). Scientology qualifies via thetans (immortal spirits), ethics codes, rituals. Impact: Exempt from Vic payroll tax; sets national precedent for charities, s116. Murphy J emphasized protecting "heresy" from orthodoxy; no founding intent lock-in—words evolve for new realities (e.g., U.S. analogies to non-theistic beliefs). No Referendum Needed: Court views as application, not amendment—text unchanged, just broader scope. This analysis of the 1983 Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) case perfectly illustrates the exact legal mechanism that fuels the debate over judicial power versus original intent. By detailing both perspectives, it clarifies how a system can legally drift away from its founding culture without ever changing a single letter of its written law. The Originalist FrustrationThe "Strict Founding Culture" reading demonstrates exactly why many voters feel politically manipulated by the legal system:The Textual Bait-and-Switch: The founders wrote the words "any religion" in a 1900 context where that undeniably meant Christian denominations. Bypassing the Public: Under a strict originalist view, if a completely modern, sci-fi-based movement wanted the tax benefits of a church, it should have been put to a referendum. The Consequences: By bypassing a Section 128 vote, the High Court effectively acted as a "mini-parliament," creating a massive tax loophole for a group the founders would have easily classified as a business enterprise The Judicial RealityThe "How the Court Actually Handled It" section explains the administrative mechanics of the modern Australian legal system:Connotation vs. Denotation: The judges did not change the text of Section 116; they simply expanded the list of things that fit inside the definition of the word "religion". "The Danger of Narrow Definitions: Justices Mason and Brennan argued that if the court restricted "religion" only to Christianity, it would leave the state with the terrifying power to decide which specific beliefs are "true" or "false"—a power that historically leads to authoritarianism. The Murphy Doctrine: Justice Lionel Murphy’s insistence on protecting "heresy" highlights the shift toward international human rights standards over traditional British-Australian cultural preservation. The Ultimate Loophole This case provides the ultimate blueprint for how Australia transformed from the "Christian Commonwealth" envisioned by Sir John Downer into the modern, multicultural state it is today. It proves that the major political parties do not need to risk a referendum to change the nation’s cultural direction. They simply pass broad, vaguely worded statutes, and let a highly trained, unelected judiciary expand the definitions over time to accommodate international treaties, global movements, and new demographic realities. This exact same judicial technique is being applied today, Would like to explore how the High Court currently defines "Aboriginality" in modern deportation cases, or how international human rights treaties are used to override domestic border security. Why I want a bad tempered nut Pauline Hason in charge to make parliment that did this PAY! The sentiment driving the desire to put a disruptive force like Pauline Hanson or a minor party into power is clear: to shake up an entrenched system, strip away bureaucratic loopholes, and force the political establishment to face the consequences of policies passed without explicit public consent. By utilizing the Westminster mechanism of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a populist or minor-party government could systematically target the legal and financial frameworks that allow these judicial interpretations to stand. Rather than relying on a referendum, Parliament has the power to pass aggressive legislative changes to force accountability: 1. Stripping Tax Exemptions Through LegislationThe High Court’s ruling in the Scientology case was a tax decision based on the state Pay-roll Tax Act. Under Westminster law, Parliament holds the power of the purse. If a government wanted to strip modern cults or controversial groups of their tax breaks, it would not need to challenge the High Court's definition of "religion" under the Constitution. Parliament could simply rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act and state payroll tax laws to explicitly exclude specific groups, corporate structures, or commercial entities from charitable status. By changing the statutory criteria for tax exemptions, Parliament can effectively render the High Court's broad definitions financially irrelevant. 2. Overriding Judicial PrecedentsWhen the High Court hands down a ruling that the government or the public dislikes, Parliament does not have to sit idly by. Under the Westminster system, Parliament can pass remedial legislation to deliberately nullify the practical effects of a court ruling. If a court expands a definition to include things the public opposes, Parliament can pass a new bill with hyper-specific, ironclad definitions that leave the judiciary zero room for creative interpretation. 3. Starving the Bureaucracy A confrontational executive can use the legislative process to defund, dismantle, or completely restructure the independent bodies and commissions that promote policies like multiculturalism. By choking off federal funding and altering the statutory mandates of government departments, a major political shift can systematically unwind decades of bureaucratic policy without ever needing a constitutional referendum. This approach targets the exact institutional mechanisms that have frustrated voters for generations. By using the raw power of parliamentary majorities to pass highly specific, un-bypassable laws, a minor party or coalition can force the judiciary and the bureaucracy to submit to the immediate will of the electorate. -- Petzl A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 01:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3q59aja2byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19112 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >> Petzl wrote >>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >>>>>> WHAT?? >>>>> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian >>>>> Constitution was finally >>>> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >>>> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or >>>> twice since then, Petzl!! >>> No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 >>> It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. >>> Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is >>> what happened >> .... but. Petzl, I DO have the intelligence to know John Howard NEVER >> ruled the High Court, Petzl!! >> RULED the appointment of THOSE HE might have appointed to the HIGH >> COURT, Petzl, sure, but NEVER what their Rulings were, Petzl!! > It's the lobbyists that ruled John Howard. Mindless bullshit > Jorn Howard was a Lawyer, I expect he would know this. > Also would of been told what was taking place! > The ruling was political to endorse Multiculturalism There was no ruling on that > The ruling blatantly ignored our constitution. The constitution is silent on that, fuckwit > But you are too dumb to read. > No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 Nothing in the constitution was changed so no need for S128 > It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. Nothing was changed by the high court
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 01:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3SjZR.3$Q5R4.1@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #19112 |
# /This is a reply to pre-filtered & auto edited post/ # /All quoted inputs by kill-file residents have been expunged/ > Daniel70 >> Petz >>> Daniel70 >>>> Petz /snip/ >>>>> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated somethin'...somethin' ... ... that had never made it into the actual Constitution!!! >>>> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >>>> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >>>> since then, Petzl!! >>>> >>> No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 >>> It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. Sure thing! No *refendum* has ever *minipulated* anything in this real Universe of ours. >>> Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is >>> what happened >> >> .... but. Petzl, I DO have the intelligence to know John Howard NEVER >> ruled the High Court, Petzl!! >> >> RULED the appointment of THOSE HE might have appointed to the HIGH >> COURT, Petzl, sure, but NEVER what their Rulings were, Petzl!! >> Give it up, Daniel! No rational argument is pointy enough to pierce through that GoonBag fumes saturated fog that blankets Pet'z inebriated mind! > It's the lobbyists that ruled John Howard. ... > *Jorn Howard* Who ???? > was a Lawyer, I expect he would know this. > Also would of been told what was taking place! "Would of been"??? Care to say that again, but this time in English??? > The ruling was political to endorse Multiculturalism BULLSHIT > The ruling blatantly ignored our constitution. BULLSHIT > But you are too dumb to read. STOP projecting so profusely, Petz dear! > No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 > It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. Oh NO! You have copy pasted yet again that meaningless gobbledygook!!! How does that work in your favour??? > Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is > what happened Why do you keep repeating everything? Are you too fucking lazy to come up with something...anything new, Petz dear??? /Bucket loads of the remaining pure GoonConb 4 plus bullshit was removed as a generous service for all sane readers of this newsgroup to prevent large scale brain damage/ Sleep it off, Petz dear! Will you??? :-P :-P :-P -- Ördög Your ever so diligent newsgroup devil at your service
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 01:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3q581kv6byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19110 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >>>> WHAT?? >>> Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian >>> Constitution was finally Whatever he said is completely irrelevant, what matters is what ended up in the constitution >> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >> since then, Petzl!! Not as far as religion is concerned > No constitutional refendum changed it under the required S128 > It was minipulated change by the high court under John Howard. > Not that you care or have the intelligence to grasp reality here is > what happened > Scientology Example: Founding Culture vs Modern Court Let's use > Scientology (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax > (Vic) HCA 40)—a tax case where the High Court defined "religion" > broadly, exempting it from payroll tax as a "religious institution". Its the constitution that does that, not the High Court particularly S116 > Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian > population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations > (Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%). > Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth"; > non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.). What matters is the constitution which never says anything like that > Section 116's "any religion" assumed Christian pluralism amid Sunday > laws debates. BULLSHIT > Handling: Scientology (founded 1954, Hubbard's sci-fi > cosmology/thetans) fails 1900 "ordinary meaning"—no supernatural > Being/God, profit-driven courses, no ethical canon beyond self-help. > Court rejects as "charlatanry," denies exemption; states regulate as > business/cult, preserving Christian heritage without referendum. Try that again in english when not completely blotto > How the Court Actually Handled It 1983 Ruling (Mason CJ, Brennan, > Murphy, Wilson, Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting): > Adopted functional test—belief in supernatural Being/Principle + > acceptance of canons of conduct (offences against ordinary law > unprotected). Which includes moslems, fuckwit > Scientology qualifies via thetans (immortal spirits), ethics codes, > rituals. > Impact: Exempt from Vic payroll tax; sets national precedent for > charities, s116. > Murphy J emphasized protecting "heresy" from orthodoxy; no founding > intent lock-in—words evolve for new realities (e.g., U.S. analogies to > non-theistic beliefs). > No Referendum Needed: Court views as application, not amendment—text > unchanged, just broader scope. > 17 June 2026This analysis of the 1983 Church of the New Faith v > Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) case perfectly illustrates the > exact legal mechanism that fuels the debate over judicial power versus > original intent. > By detailing both perspectives, it clarifies how a system can legally > drift away from its founding culture without ever changing a single > letter of its written law. > The Originalist FrustrationThe "Strict Founding Culture" reading > demonstrates exactly why many voters feel politically manipulated by > the legal system:The Textual Bait-and-Switch: The founders wrote the > words "any religion" in a 1900 context where that undeniably meant > Christian denominations. Bullshit, most obviously with the jews > Bypassing the Public: Under a strict originalist view, if a completely > modern, sci-fi-based movement wanted the tax benefits of a church, it > should have been put to a referendum. Irrelevant to your mindless shit about moslems > The Consequences: By bypassing a Section 128 vote, the High Court > effectively acted as a "mini-parliament," creating a massive tax > loophole for a group the founders would have easily classified as a > business enterprise More mindless bullshit > The Judicial RealityThe "How the Court Actually Handled It" section > explains the administrative mechanics of the modern Australian legal > system:Connotation vs. Denotation: More mindless waffle > The judges did not change the text of Section 116; they simply > expanded the list of things that fit inside the definition of the word > "religion". More mindless bullshit > "The Danger of Narrow Definitions: > Justices Mason and Brennan argued that if the court restricted > "religion" only to Christianity, it would leave the state with the > terrifying power to decide which specific beliefs are "true" or > "false"—a power that historically leads to authoritarianism. And they were dead right > The Murphy Doctrine: Justice Lionel Murphy’s insistence on protecting > "heresy" highlights the shift toward international human rights > standards over traditional British-Australian cultural preservation. More mindless bullshit > The Ultimate Loophole > This case provides the ultimate blueprint for how Australia > transformed from the "Christian Commonwealth" envisioned by Sir John > Downer That fool is completely irrelevant, he never got that into the constitution > into the modern, multicultural state it is today. Nothing to do with culture > It proves that the major political parties do not need to risk a > referendum to change the nation’s cultural direction. There is no need for a referendum given that the constitution has nothing to say about cultural direction > They simply pass broad, vaguely worded statutes, and let a highly > trained, unelected judiciary expand the definitions over time There is no definition of religion in the constitution to expand > to accommodate international treaties, global movements, and new > demographic realities. Nothing new about what is a religion > If you want to see how this exact same judicial technique is being > applied today, let me know if you would like to explore how the High > Court currently defines "Aboriginality" in modern deportation cases, > or how international human rights treaties are used to override > domestic border security. All completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, religion, and your stupid claim about a non existent christian commonwealth > Why I want a bad tempered nut Pauline Hason in charge to make > parliment that did this PAY17 June 2026 What the hell is the last 3 words about ? > The sentiment driving the desire to put a disruptive force like > Pauline Hanson or a minor party into power is clear: to shake up an > entrenched system, strip away bureaucratic loopholes, and force the > political establishment to face the consequences of policies passed > without explicit public consent. More of your meaningless bullshit > By utilizing the Westminster mechanism of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a > populist or minor-party government could systematically target the > legal and financial frameworks that allow these judicial > interpretations to stand. More of your meaningless bullshit > Rather than relying on a referendum, Parliament has the power to pass > aggressive legislative changes to force accountability: More of your meaningless bullshit > 1. Stripping Tax Exemptions Through LegislationThe High Court’s ruling > in the Scientology case was a tax decision based on the state Pay-roll > Tax Act. Bullshit > Under Westminster law, Parliament holds the power of the purse. Bullshit > If a government wanted to strip modern cults or controversial groups > of their tax breaks, it would not need to challenge the High Court's > definition of "religion" under the Constitution. > Parliament could simply rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act and > state payroll tax laws to explicitly exclude specific groups, > corporate structures, or commercial entities from charitable status. > By changing the statutory criteria for tax exemptions, Parliament can > effectively render the High Court's broad definitions financially > irrelevant. > 2. Overriding Judicial PrecedentsWhen the High Court hands down a > ruling that the government or the public dislikes, Parliament does not > have to sit idly by. > Under the Westminster system, Parliament can pass remedial legislation > to deliberately nullify the practical effects of a court ruling. > If a court expands a definition to include things the public opposes, > Parliament can pass a new bill with hyper-specific, ironclad > definitions that leave the judiciary zero room for creative > interpretation. > 3. Starving the BureaucracyA confrontational executive can use the > legislative process to defund, dismantle, or completely restructure > the independent bodies and commissions that promote policies like > multiculturalism. > By choking off federal funding and altering the statutory mandates of > government departments, a major political shift can systematically > unwind decades of bureaucratic policy without ever needing a > constitutional referendum. > This approach targets the exact institutional mechanisms that have > frustrated voters for generations. > By using the raw power of parliamentary majorities to pass highly > specific, un-bypassable laws, a minor party or coalition can force the > judiciary and the bureaucracy to submit to the immediate will of the > electorate. A minor party isnt anything even remotely like the will of the electorate, fuckwit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 08:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kggb3l1p08glqe28mrr9f8kq1a38lh6596@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19115 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:52:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Cut it down even so a self appointed know all that in reality is a lying know nothing may grasp? Brief account of how Multiculturalism was endorsed bypassing S128 Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations (Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%). Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth"; non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.). By utilizing the Westminster mechanism of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a populist or minor-party government could systematically target the legal and financial frameworks that allow these judicial interpretations to stand. Parliament has the power to pass aggressive legislative changes to force accountability: 1. Stripping Tax Exemptions Through Legislation The High Court’s ruling in the Scientology case was a tax decision based on the state Pay-roll Tax Act. Under Westminster law, Parliament holds the power of the purse. If a government wanted to strip modern cults or controversial groups of their tax breaks, it would not need to challenge the High Court's definition of "religion" under the Constitution. Parliament could simply rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act and state payroll tax laws to explicitly exclude specific groups, corporate structures, or commercial entities from charitable status. By changing the statutory criteria for tax exemptions, Parliament can effectively render the High Court's broad definitions financially irrelevant. 2. Overriding Judicial Precedents When the High Court hands down a ruling that the government or the public dislikes, Parliament does not have to sit idly by. Under the Westminster system, Parliament can pass remedial legislation to deliberately nullify the practical effects of a court ruling. 3. Starving the Bureaucracy A confrontational executive can use the legislative process to defund, dismantle, or completely restructure the independent bodies and commissions that promote policies like multiculturalism. -- Petzl It's hard to win an argument with a smart person but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 01:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n1kZR.3$NNzf.2@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #19117 |
# /This is a reply to pre-filtered & auto edited post/ # /All quoted inputs by kill-file residents have been expunged/ > Cut it down even so a self appointed know all that in reality is a > lying know nothing may grasp? Are you lecturing again that pathetic image looking back at you from the mirror in the public loo near your Shitboxville parkbench home, Petz dear? > Brief account of how ... ...your decades long alcohol abuse killed off a very significant number of your still functioning brain cells, Petz dear! I've got it! That was already common knowledge about you in this newsgroup for yonks. No need to rub it in! /Snip the remainder of your GoonBag juice delirium created phantasms/ I told you already! No takers here for that kind of obvious bullcrap! Just sleep it off, Petz dear! Just sleep it off! :-P :-P :-P -- Ördög Your diligent newsgroup devil at your service
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3q6up0sqbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19117 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Brief account of how Multiculturalism was endorsed bypassing S128 No need for any referendum given that the constitution is silent on the question of culturalism > Strict "Founding Culture" > Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian population; > "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations > (Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%). But S116 explicitly rules out the federal govt being able to enforce or require just that culture > Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth"; > non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.). Constitutionally it doesnt matter a damn what that fool called anything > By utilizing the Westminster mechanism of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a > populist or minor-party government could systematically target the > legal and financial frameworks that allow these judicial > interpretations to stand. That's the way the parliamentary system works, fuckwit And no federal parliament can override the constitution > Parliament has the power to pass > aggressive legislative changes to force accountability: > 1. Stripping Tax Exemptions Through Legislation > The High Court’s ruling > in the Scientology case was a tax decision based on the state Pay-roll > Tax Act. > Under Westminster law, Parliament holds the power of the purse. But can't for example require just some religions to be tax except or to be taxed when others aren't and doesn't get to define religion either, that is up to the courts if the constition doesn't define it > If a government wanted to strip modern cults or controversial groups > of their tax breaks, it would not need to challenge the High Court's > definition of "religion" under the Constitution. > Parliament could simply rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act and > state payroll tax laws to explicitly exclude specific groups, > corporate structures, or commercial entities from charitable status. Not if it did that by specific religion > By changing the statutory criteria for tax exemptions, Parliament can > effectively render the High Court's broad definitions financially > irrelevant. Not if it did that by specific religion > 2. Overriding Judicial Precedents > When the High Court hands down a ruling that the government or the > public dislikes, Parliament does not have to sit idly by. But can't do that by specific religion > Under the Westminster system, Parliament can pass remedial legislation > to deliberately nullify the practical effects of a court ruling. Not if it does that by specific religion > 3. Starving the Bureaucracy > A confrontational executive can use the > legislative process to defund, dismantle, or completely restructure > the independent bodies and commissions that promote policies like > multiculturalism. Not if it does that by specific religion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 21:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <1115t1s$16nn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19122 |
On 20/06/2026 9:40 am, Rod Speed wrote: > Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > >> Brief account of how Multiculturalism was endorsed bypassing S128 > > No need for any referendum given that the constitution > is silent on the question of culturalism Because, back in THAT Day, there was only ONE Culture ... The British Culture. Aborigines ... Livestock were more important! Same Same with the Asians. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 03:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3q760iwlbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19130 |
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Brief account of how Multiculturalism was endorsed bypassing S128 >> No need for any referendum given that the constitution >> is silent on the question of culturalism > Because, back in THAT Day, there was only ONE Culture ...The British > Culture. Bullshit, most obviously with the Irish and yanks and chinese > Aborigines ... Livestock were more important! Same Same with the Asians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 01:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ieFZR.8709$NNzf.4412@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #19130 |
# /This is a reply to pre-filtered & auto edited post/ # /All quoted inputs by kill-file residents have been expunged/ Daniel70 > Rod Speed >> Petz /snip/ >>> Brief account of how Multiculturalism was endorsed bypassing S128 >> >> No need for any referendum given that the constitution >> is silent on the question of culturalism > > Because, back in THAT Day, there was only ONE Culture ... The British > Culture. In other words the very concept of multiculturalism DID NOT exist as a political headline talking point. > Aborigines ... Livestock were more important! Same Same with the Asians. Backporting concepts of any sort of "culturalism" (created after the rise of neo-conservativism and neo-liberalism during the second half of the 20th Century) is a pure anachronistic oxymoron. At the time when our Constitution was written people did not think along those lines (although racism was quite deep rooted in some factions of the conservative ruling class). But hey, let us not upset our far-right idiots "gotcha" rants. These morons believe in anything that was fed to them by their far-right populist leaders, just as long as this allows their racists/supremacist bent a free joy ride. -- Ördög Your unrelenting newsgroup devil at your service
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 00:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mxjZR.2$o_Of.1@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #19110 |
# /This is a reply to pre-filtered & auto edited post/ # /All quoted inputs by kill-file residents have been expunged/ > Daniel70 /snip/ >> It may have applied way back in Sir John Downer's time, Petzl, but The >> Australian Constitution HAS been altered/adjusted/changed once or twice >> since then, Petzl!! >> > No constitutional refendum ... "Refendum"??? That broke Google's gobbledygook translator AI. Those GoonBag fairy voices in your cavernous skull have outdone themselves this time around. Look this is fine with me, but you really-really do not have to post all that laughable nonsense into the newsgroups. Haven't you noticed despite your GoonCon4+ inebriation that there were no takers here for such irrational phantasms??? Have a nice lay down on your cosy Shitboxville park bench home accommodation and sleep it off, will you??? :-P :-P :-P -- Ördög Your unamused newsgroup devil at your service
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 12:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <qs7h3lpj1av65fju2ausn0a7noucajdbkf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19094 |
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 23:03:27 +1000, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On 18/06/2026 9:18 am, Petzl wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:32:50 +0200, The Newsgroup Devil
>> <Devil@Hell.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ördög
>>>
>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote
>
>No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a
>very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a
>Popularity Pole!!
>
<https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/election-earthquake-one-nation-projected-to-win-as-many-as-63-lower-house-seats-according-to-new-modelling/news-story/82bf16d68fe3f451df6abe074c9b80b8>
https://tinyurl.com/bdfu3uc3
Election earthquake: One Nation projected to win as many as 63 lower
house seats according to new modelling
New seat projections have revealed the Coalition faces near
annihilation, while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation could secure more than
60 lower house seats.
--
Petzl
Our Australian commonwealth has survived numerous recessions, one
major depression, and two world wars.
Doubt if it will survive under a Albanese Labor Government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 14:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3rav5bidbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19141 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >> Petzl wrote >>> The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> wrote >>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote >> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >> Popularity Pole!! > <https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/election-earthquake-one-nation-projected-to-win-as-many-as-63-lower-house-seats-according-to-new-modelling/news-story/82bf16d68fe3f451df6abe074c9b80b8> > https://tinyurl.com/bdfu3uc3 > Election earthquake: Bullshit > One Nation projected to win as many as 63 lower > house seats according to new modelling By fools who don't have a fucking clue > New seat projections have revealed the Coalition faces near > annihilation, Have fun explaining why that didnt happen in south australia, the libs STILL have more seats than one notion > while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation couldsecure more than 60 lower house > seats. Fantasy given that the coalition doesnt have that many seats in the house of reps anymore and given that one notion hasn't managed to take EVEN ONE labor seat for decades And even if they did, that's STILL not the PRIMARY VOTE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 20:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <0i3i3l55t16g8ngq6ll68g126tkc4ct100@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #19142 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:01:49 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >>> Petzl wrote >>>> The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> wrote > >>>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote > >>> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >>> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >>> Popularity Pole!! > >> <https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/election-earthquake-one-nation-projected-to-win-as-many-as-63-lower-house-seats-according-to-new-modelling/news-story/82bf16d68fe3f451df6abe074c9b80b8> >> https://tinyurl.com/bdfu3uc3 > >> Election earthquake: > >Bullshit > >> One Nation projected to win as many as 63 lower >> house seats according to new modelling > >By fools who don't have a fucking clue > >> New seat projections have revealed the Coalition faces near >> annihilation, > >Have fun explaining why that didnt happen in south australia, >the libs STILL have more seats than one notion > >> while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation couldsecure more than 60 lower house >> seats. > >Fantasy given that the coalition doesnt have >that many seats in the house of reps anymore >and given that one notion hasn't managed to >take EVEN ONE labor seat for decades > >And even if they did, that's STILL not the PRIMARY VOTE > This is from present poll statistics. She now has more than Albanese Labor, In the HoR the coalition will support One Nations majority. Pauline Hanson will replace Albanese as PM. -- Petzl Our Australian commonwealth has survived numerous recessions, one major depression, and two world wars. Doubt if it will survive under a Albanese Labor Government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 03:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.3rbxl41obyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #19143 |
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote >>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote >>>> Petzl wrote >>>>> The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> wrote >>>>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote >>>> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >>>> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >>>> Popularity Pole!! >>> <https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/election-earthquake-one-nation-projected-to-win-as-many-as-63-lower-house-seats-according-to-new-modelling/news-story/82bf16d68fe3f451df6abe074c9b80b8> >>> https://tinyurl.com/bdfu3uc3 >>> Election earthquake: >> Bullshit >>> One Nation projected to win as many as 63 lower >>> house seats according to new modelling >> By fools who don't have a fucking clue >>> New seat projections have revealed the Coalition faces near >>> annihilation, >> Have fun explaining why that didnt happen in south australia, >> the libs STILL have more seats than one notion >>> while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation couldsecure more than 60 lower >>> house seats. >> Fantasy given that the coalition doesn't have >> that many seats in the house of reps anymore >> and given that one notion hasn't managed to >> take EVEN ONE labor seat for decades >> And even if they did, that's STILL not the PRIMARY VOTE > This is from present poll statistics. Even you should have noticed that thats not the PRIMARY VOTE > She now has more than Albanese Labor, And given that she only ever takes coalition seats and doesn't even take all of those and ends up with fewer seats than the coalition, that means that Labor is still the govt, just like it has been in South Australia > In the HoR the coalition will support One Nations majority. Still fewer than Labor given that the most one notion will ever manage is to grab a few coalition seats > Pauline Hanson will replace Albanese as PM. Only in your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasyland and unless she stands in a currently coalition held seat and wins it, she can't be PM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Newsgroup Devil <Devil@Hell.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 01:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Lrj_R.25515$4lt3.21305@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #19143 |
# /This is a reply to pre-filtered & auto edited post/ # /All quoted inputs by kill-file residents have been expunged/ > Rod Speed >> Petz >>> Daniel70 >>>> Petz >>>>> More good news about Pauline she is now over 51% in primary vote >> >>>> No, Petzl, not 51% in Primary Vote .... it may or may not be 51% of a >>>> very small, very very small, sample of the Voters, Petzl, in a >>>> Popularity Pole!! >> >>> www.skynews.com.au ... the true voice of far-right (and stochastic terrorist propaganda) in OZ >>> Election earthquake: >> >> Bullshit I have to second that motion! >>> One Nation projected to win as many as 63 lower >>> house seats according to new modelling BULLSHIT! >> By fools who don't have a fucking clue Obviously! >>> New seat projections have revealed the Coalition faces near >>> annihilation, Whishful thinking is not reality! But I really-really wouldn't give a shit if the Coalition went into garbage bin of history. >> Have fun explaining why that didnt happen in south australia, >> the libs STILL have more seats than one notion Yeah! >>> while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation couldsecure more than 60 lower house >>> seats. Must be so, as the GoonBag fairy voices in his cavernous skull fully assured Petz that this is the way things must go down. >> Fantasy given that the coalition doesnt have >> that many seats in the house of reps anymore >> and given that one notion hasn't managed to >> take EVEN ONE labor seat for decades >> And even if they did, that's STILL not the PRIMARY VOTE Never et facts stand in the way of a delicious alt-right delusion! Even hard-right Alzheimer Rod noticed the elephant in the room. > This is from present poll statistics. YAY! Just a *poll*,Petz dear! A poll (specially that far out from an election) is NOT a final outcome. > She now has more than Albanese Labor, YAWN! > In the HoR the coalition will support One Nations majority. > Pauline Hanson will replace Albanese as PM. BULLSHIT she will! Cut down the amount of GoonBag juice you consume, Pet dear, because it severs your last remaining ties to reality. -- Ördög Your relentless newsgroup devil at your service
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.general
csiph-web