I think you may have missed the part where I pointed out that you were the one who was wrong.
It was the part where I said :
"All in response to a factual and proven post.
The only person posting anything preposterous was you.
If you had been back to that thread, Ironman you would have found this link : http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
Read it, please.
Now, you were wrong. It wasn’t a matter of opinion, you were just plain out and out wrong.
And it is precisely that kind of casual, condescending insulting of other posters when they are right and you’re wrong, that has people on your case.
Trying checking facts before posting opinions as the truth.
Opinions, yours, mine, anyones, are just that, opinions.
They are not facts."
So in this instance, your rant was totally unjustified, mild or wild.
I think you may have missed the part where I pointed out that you were the one who was wrong.
It was the part where I said :
"All in response to a factual and proven post.
The only person posting anything preposterous was you.
If you had been back to that thread, Ironman you would have found this link : http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
Read it, please.
Now, you were wrong. It wasn’t a matter of opinion, you were just plain out and out wrong.
And it is precisely that kind of casual, condescending insulting of other posters when they are right and you’re wrong, that has people on your case.
Trying checking facts before posting opinions as the truth.
Opinions, yours, mine, anyones, are just that, opinions.
They are not facts."
So in this instance, your rant was totally unjustified, mild or wild.[/quote]
Alright. Let me review some facts here. Someone said that the Governor -General of New Zealand had the power to discharge or disband or some such action, the Parlaiment of Australia, and that he was a direct representative of Britain. My contention was that this could hardly be so, since I did not believe that the representative of one country, Commonwealth or not, would have the authority to discharge the Head of State (or President, or Prime Minister) or members of Parlaiment of another nation, Commonwealth or not.
It was also contended the the Queen has the authority to terminate the Governor-General of New Zealand.
Now, having investigated this per your request, I have discovered that:
"The limited form of this representation was explained in a 1988 Constitutional Commission report, that concluded “the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal instruments relating to it”.[2]
Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice the Governor-General carries out his constitutional responsibilities without reference to the Queen. In 1975, the Queen, through her Private Secretary, wrote that she "has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia
OK. So we have established that while the Queen may appoint this official, she in fact has no authority over his action and may not dictate them. Continuing.
"The Governor-General of Australia is a position established by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to sign legislation into law, appoint judges and ministers and perform many other important duties. In terms of protocol, the position is higher than any other Australian office. The Governor-General is President of the Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
According to the literal text of the constitution a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The literal text also allows the Governor-General to exercise control over the federal government and veto legislation. These extensive powers are regulated by a convention (unwritten rule) where the Governor-General takes advice from the Prime Minister of Australia and other government ministers. In almost every situation, the advice must be followed, so in practice, the Governor-General rarely makes important decisions and never decides to veto legislation."
OK. So we see that the Governor-General is an official of Australia, and not of Britain or New Zealand. While appointed by the Queen, and surely responsible for promoting her agenda and expressing the concerns of Britain through her in the government of Australia, the Queen in fact has no authority over his actions, and may not dictate them.
Now, we have established that:
the Governor-General is an official of Australia, not New Zealand as was stated
the Governor-General of Australia, once appointed, is not subject to termination or dictation by the Queen, but only councel, which is not legally bound to act upon by the Constitution of Australia.
I do not see how I am wrong about my contention that Britain or New Zealand had the authority to discharge anyone in the Australian government. If I am wrong, I will admit it with an apology. However, according to the above facts, I do not see error on my contention that the “Governor-General of New Zealand” does not have the authority over the govenrment of Australia, for the Governor-General is an officer of Australia, and not of new Zealand or any other country.
What I think is that this debate is the product of an incorrectly stated contention, and I, going on what was said and not what was not said by someone who said something incorrectly or in some incorrect way, contended that it was not so. by the original assertion, I am indeed correct as fas as I can see. Perhaps it was simply that the person who made the statemnt incorrectly made it and intended to say it a different way.
Yeah, because you’ve always admitted error before haven’t you?
Does 45 degrees ring a bell?
The Governor General of Australia holds power directly devolved from the Crown. I believe that is the crux of the discussion.
BTW, I don’t suppose you would like to answer any of my questions yet would you?
Why have you never answered any direct question that I have asked you?
I can only conclude that you are a coward and a moron.
Why have implied that I have lied about my service in the British Army?
Why have you not responded to any of my PMs?
Why are you such an opinionated and condescending idiot?
How little courage does it take to respond to questions on an internet forum?
Tubs
EDITED TO ADD: Erwin, just seen your post, we would all like to debate normally but unfortunately debate conventionally involves both questions and ANSWERS. One member of this site absolutely refuses to answer direct questions. Until he deigns to answer questions posed to him he will be insulted as a troll and a dullard!
It’s OK Erwin. We appreciate your concern, truly. But we are debating calmly like gentlemen. I feel no heat in this debate right now. We’ll keep it that way too, right fellows? I know I will ceretainly try. It’s cool. 8)
Have a cold beer on me. This one is your favorite right? Hold out your mug! pssssssshclickglub glub glub glub glubfizzzzzzzzzzz
It’s OK Erwin. We appreciate your concern, truly. But we are debating calmly like gentlemen. I feel no heat in this debate right now. We’ll keep it that way too, right fellows? I know I will ceretainly try. It’s cool. 8)
Have a cold beer on me. This one is your favorite right? Hold out your mug! pssssssshclickglub glub glub glub glubfizzzzzzzzzzz[/quote]
Debate conventionally involves both questions and ANSWERS. You absolutely refuse to answer direct questions. Dullard!
OK. I was wrong about 45 degrees. It’s more like 40. Sorry for that. But it’s moot now since the soldier was returning fire anyway, and not randomly into the streets as was originally claimed by someone! Where is my apology about claiming that US soldiers fire wrecklessly or randomly into the streets? Has any been man enough to offer it? Nope.
Please do not call me names. I am not calling you names. Deal?
OK. I was wrong about 45 degrees. It’s more like 40. But it’s moot now since the soldier was returning fire anyway. Please do not call me names. I am not calling you names. Deal?[/quote]
That is one question answered, I note with interest that there is no apology attached…
What names? I will admit that asking you is pointless as you do not answer direct questions.
How about your insinuation that I have lied about my service? Are you ever going to answer me?
OK. I was wrong about 45 degrees. It’s more like 40. But it’s moot now since the soldier was returning fire anyway. Please do not call me names. I am not calling you names. Deal?[/quote]
That is one question answered, I note with interest that there is no apology attached…
What names? I will admit that asking you is pointless as you do not answer direct questions.
How about your insinuation that I have lied about my service? Are you ever going to answer me?
Tubs[/quote]
If you post a link to where I said such, I will review it. If I did say it, and if it was unfounded, I will apologize. Although, I am afraid that I will discover that you said something for which you owe me an apology, which prompted me, if I did in fact, to say something rash myself. If that is the case, you will be required to apologize for it before you get one from me!
However, I am certainly due an apology from several members here for contending, I think before any of that took place, that US soldiers fire randomly and wrecklessly into the streets without certainty of their target. Surely you can see that.
OK. I was wrong about 45 degrees. It’s more like 40. But it’s moot now since the soldier was returning fire anyway. Please do not call me names. I am not calling you names. Deal?[/quote]
That is one question answered, I note with interest that there is no apology attached…
What names? I will admit that asking you is pointless as you do not answer direct questions.
How about your insinuation that I have lied about my service? Are you ever going to answer me?
Tubs[/quote]
If you post a link to where I said such, I will review it. If I did say it, and if it was unfounded, I will apologize. Although, I am afraid that I will discover that you said something for which you owe me an apology, which prompted me, if I did in fact, to say something rash myself. If that is the case, you will be required to apologize for it before you get one from me!
However, I am certainly due an apology from several members here for contending, I think before any of that took place, that US soldiers fire randomly and wrecklessly into the streets without certainty of their target. Surely you can see that.[/quote]
I’m starting to think that you are not old enough to be in the military.
Hey, it’s not me. It’s the UN and Amnesty International that know all that and made those reports about British soldiers killing numerous civilians with careless fire. Please, inform us about how you were a part of their investigative teams.[/quote]
My emboldenment.
That insinuates that I have lied about my service and is both insulting and demeaning.
You still have not ever responded to any of my PMs.
Jan, I understand those concerns completely. We here in the US have the same problems.
Yes! It is the worker who gets the shaft. That is unfortunate but true.
I understand that is a problem as you say, but imagine in the US where some company executives make $5-20,000,000 or more and the people than manufacture for the company get $25,000-35,000 per year! The disparity is even greater in the US. So I understand what you mean.
We have had a number of thos occurances in the US in the last few years - Tyco, WorldCom (the then largest telecommunications company in the world, right here in Mississippi, 10 miles from where I live), Enron, and there have been others - all have gone out of business because og greedy excecutives, and the employees have lost their life’s savings in their retirement plans. It is shameful. I guess capitalism provides an easy opportunity for such things.
Exactly. That is what workers everywhere deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not working very well in the US at this time. However, Bush is trying to insure that it will in the future.
Yes indeed. Here in the US the workers are not respected enough. We in the US work 8-9 hours per day, and many work 10 or 11 or more hours. Especially retail store managers and assistant managers. Companies like Wal-Mart and other large companies require their managers to work 12-14 hours per day 6 days a week! And while the salary for such a job is very good, they have no life, they live with terrible stress, and have no time for themselves or thier families. Even the regualr blue-collar employee in the US must work 8-9 hours per day, and then the company wants to offer some HMO (health management corportation) issurance package which requires you to use one of maybe 3 doctors of their choice, does not cover pediatry (as if so many employees do not work on their feet!) and so on and so forth.
Back in the 1980’s, most companies provided health insurance that paid 80% with a low co-payment. Today, such plans are reserved for government employees, military, and corporate executives. The HMO’s have ruined health care insurance for the average worker.
OK, first you must understand this. You, like a few others, were contending for quite a long time before that, that the soldier in the video was shooting his weapon randomly out of the wondow of the vehicle into the streets, and that US soldiers shoot wrecklessly.
I find that highly offensive!!!
You and others were insinuating that US soldiers act like wreckless cowboys who shoot first and find a target 2nd. That IS NOT the case, it IS highly offensive, and I had been taking a lot of crap about something which was not true and did not happen for a long time before I made that comment.
Now, I think I even showed restraint, considering that I did far less name calling and insulting that that which was thrown at me. Now you want to drag up that topic again expecting me to apologize for harshly reacting, after great and lengthly insinuation of such ludirous nature about the soldiers of my nation’s military. I think you are looking into a whole for a gold coin. It is not there. I deserve postumous apologies in fact, from you and everyone who made such insinuations. But I have not asked for them.
What you are doing is like pulling out a club and hitting someone with it repeatedly. Then after being repeatedly hit, that one you are hitting strikes back. Then you say to them, “Ouch! That’s uncalled for! You owe me an apology for hitting me! Where’s my apology! I demmand an apology!!!”
:lol: Really now.
In fact, you just got through calling me 2 more names just 2 posts ago!
Just let it be. You are not in the slightest free of guilt in that matter. It would serve everyone to let it be. Unless ofcourse you feel like apologizing for the perposterous and highly offensive remarks about my country’s military forces? Otherwise, forget about it.
You and others were insinuating that US soldiers act like wreckless cowboys who shoot first and find a target 2nd. That IS NOT the case, it IS highly offensive, and I had been taking a lot of crap about something which was not true and did not happen for a long time before I made that comment.
In my experience this is often the case, but hey that’s only my experience not something I’ve read on the net or dreamed about last night.
As you like to quote your father I will too, my father served with the British army in the late 40s and early 50s he served in Malaya, Hong Kong, Palestine and wait for it Korea. He gave me one piece of advice when I joined the army and that was
“If you’re ever in a battle with the Yanks keep them in front of you”
The purpose being avoiding incoming from 2 directions, but hey he was only speaking from his experience what does that count for?
No, it is not your experience. Any more than it is the experience of British soldiers who’ve killed civilians by accident. Now don’t make me post another 70 posts showing where British soldiers have killed civilians because of careless fire to prove that accidents in war do not equal a general carelessness on the behalf of an armed force.
:roll:
So let me ask you, have British soldiers killed civilians on numerous occasions with small arms?
No, some civillians have been killed, and those cases have been investigated (a Royal Tank Regiment soldier is appearing in court soon over a death just after the war).
What’s happening to the soldier who machine gunned the car carrying the recued Italian hostage and three Italian secret service agents?
It’s not my experience??? FFS that sounds like something from a George Orwell book.
Of course civilians die in wartime but these deaths can be reduced by the professional behaviour of the troops involved.
I see the USAF has been up to it’s tricks in Afghanistan again,
lose one helicopter: bomb a village doesnt exactly sound like a restrained response in a residential area does it now?
