Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
From @Kul 's original post.

GENERAL INFORMATION: This topic has its own rules.
1. Don’t be a dick. You have your views, I’ve mine, congratulations we live in a society. Respect the fact that people may have different views to you. If you can’t do this, you don’t belong here.
2. Don’t post anything that will get this site in trouble
3. Otherwise this thread is a place where you have a bit more flexibility. Just don’t be a dick. You have freedom of expression here, but that also means you accept that the expression of the rest of the world may not agreed with your views. This is not a free site and you have no right whatsoever to complain.

Thread Open.
😊
 
Last edited:
Anyone interested in Robodebt please read the section where Ms Pulford (Social Security Dept solicitor) is questioned about external legal advice received and if accepted meant the end of the scheme.


Been crook with whatever variant of Covid that accompanied me back to Australia last Sunday week and caught up with a bit of the RC inquiry broadcasts whilst laid up, including Pulford in the witness stand.

The dismantling of our public service during the last few terms of federal government was obvious to anybody that looked, though just how far the appointments of ideological plants had damaged it was not fully apparent.

I caught a snippet of news of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being basically disbanded and positions refilled in a much more transparent process. This is a great start in response, as the RC has already shown it as having become a political arm of the previous government.

I had thought Brandis was one of their better representatives until informed of his role in helping create that environment, one that worked against the good of his constituency.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Andrew Gee MP. Good to hear your voice supporting the indigenous one to parliament, whilst looking forward to seeing Darren Chester changing tack to his normal more reasonable position and other Nationals also standing up for it, or at least the party allowing a conscience vote.

Mostly though, I truly hope that Dutton and the Liberal party also support this important decision, with a conscience vote if necessary for the few that will sit with Pauline and co after not crossing the floor.
 
Thank you Andrew Gee MP. Good to hear your voice supporting the indigenous one to parliament, whilst looking forward to seeing Darren Chester changing tack to his normal more reasonable position and other Nationals also standing up for it, or at least the party allowing a conscience vote.

Mostly though, I truly hope that Dutton and the Liberal party also support this important decision, with a conscience vote if necessary for the few that will sit with Pauline and co after not crossing the floor.
His words, Andrew Gee MP here:
“The recent decision by the National party to oppose the Indigenous voice to parliament, and also witnessing the devastation our region has experienced over the past few weeks, has really brought home to me the importance of being able to stand up and be counted.

“I can’t reconcile the fact that every Australian will get a free vote on the vitally important issue of the voice, yet National party MPs are expected to fall into line behind a party position that I fundamentally disagree with, and vote accordingly in parliament.

“While I respect the views of my colleagues, this just isn’t right.”

The Liberals, in the past did allow for members to have a conscientious objection. This is rarely used and is a very blue moon event (last used by 5 mp's on a point with refugees around 2005 from memory). Naturally that is different to a Conscience vote, the right really want to steamroll that in and pretend there is unity on an indigenous voice... Their isn't.


Thinking about it, the Indigenous voice is a constitutionally changing and real landmark piece of legislation. I can see how that would motivate someone to go independent when their party pushes them to follow a different line.
 
Was Lee Harvey Oswald dosed up on LSD?

"A CIA memo titled ‘Truth Drugs in Interrogation’ revealed the agency practice of dosing agents who were marked for dangerous overseas missions,”.

“Some chroniclers of Oswald’s life have suggested that he was one of the young marines on whom the CIA performed its acid tests.”

Would LHO have understood that the visions during a LSD trip were not real? Could he have been more suggestive?

AS the intercept asserts, LHO's strange travel too and from Russia becomes so much easier if it's funded by the CIA!

The CIA heavily invested in Hypnotism, which is so weird... Hypnotism works, yet we apparently can't Hypnotise someone to shoot someone against their will? I don't exactly buy that.


it just seems so clear to me. LHO shoots or shoots at Kennedy, Jack Ruby is told to position himself and close the loose thread (or Hypnotized to shoot LHO... his official story of being sorry for Jackie Onassis is IMHO BS).

^ I like these kind of topics better. left vs right will always happen. Who killed Kennedy is a better question.
 
Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Not because he was on LSD but because he was a nutter who wanted to be someone.

Jack Ruby killed Oswald because… well who can say? Ruby was a bit nuts himself. His official position was it was to save Jackie the need to attend the trial. I think it’s safe to say he wasn’t hypnotised.
 
Something turned respectable members of the community, principal, teachers..into vicious and remorseless killers.
Might have been worthwhile trying to capture at least one of them alive so that they could be adequately interrogated and authorities could accurately ascertain what happened.
All this conjecture does is create confusion and conflict.
Probably the glass barbecue I’d say
 
Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Not because he was on LSD but because he was a nutter who wanted to be someone.

Jack Ruby killed Oswald because… well who can say? Ruby was a bit nuts himself. His official position was it was to save Jackie the need to attend the trial. I think it’s safe to say he wasn’t hypnotised.
Sorry Yoss, I’ve read tons of books on this (Proutys book my fave) and attended some lectures on the assassination topic when I was doing post grad at Harvard Jack Kennedy School and LHO has nothing to do with the assassination. Mac Wallace was one of the shooters,

I’m not naive to think it was a lone nut. There were motives everywhere.
* The cia (Dulles) ;
* the disgruntled Cubans after the BOP invasion at the zapata airstrip ;
* JFK rejecting operation Northwoods pissing off all the Cuban exiles and to really understand the killing of Kennedy we need to understand the events that led up to it. The Califano Papers detail vividly how much the military were wanting to invade Cuba and Jack rejected all invasions proposals , invariably leading to a massive hatred of jfk.
* oil depletion allowance - Texas oil men like Clint Murchison
* And most notable the National Security State were involved to counter Kennedys foreign policies.
* Also Hoover and the CIA. Hoovers career was done after his second term but with old mate and neighbour LBJ as president Hoovers career was extended to be indefinite as boss of cia - As Rep Cornelius Gallagher who was at Dallas with Bobby after the shooting, Cornelius said Bobby Kennedy said “I know the old man (Hoover) Has his finger all over this (the killing of his brother)


* Earl Cabell was also involved with the firing by jfk of his brother Earl Cabell.

Jack had a lot of enemies in Dallas and in the Military. Especially noting his peace speech at the UN and at American University. All this peace talk is bad for business and is still so today. Need those wars baby!

Oswald wasn’t a nutter. He was bright - taught himself Russian and was working in intelligence (radar) - hence why as soon as he was arrested in front of news cameras he was yelling “I’m a patsy!!!” Completely counter to him being a malcontent devoid of meaning.

Ruby was a pawn. He was also up to his ears in NO with mobsters and connected with the cops. First person Dorothy Kilgallen spoke to when she was investigating jfks assisnation was Ruby,

The icing on the cake for me and almost everyone of a conspiracy is when Oswald was killed by Ruby because “he wanted to spare Jackie the pain of a trial” hahahahaha. No trial = no formal independent investigation. Case closed.

Jack was pulling troops out of Vietnam ( May 1963 SECDEF conference Secretary of Defence Macnamara orders troops out of Nam by 1965) but team Murica (Military industrial complex) and the big Texas oil men like Clint Murchison were having nothing of it. Can’t control Kennedy but can control LBJ. Kennedy was for peace. Not as far as appeasement like his old man Joe Kennedy but for countries to listen to their people to self determine. It’s no coincidence that the war ramped up in 64 when Johnson took over. Video below re Jack and his views on this.

My mate Sury Abhay who his grandad was interpreter for the king of Laos (first assistant secretary) ; great grand son of Kou Abhay (look him up) and his great uncle is Kouprasith Abhay had regular round tables with both Dulles Brothers and the highest level officials of the US Govt - JFK included (because they’re from Laos and that Laos as you know was such a big IR issue in the 50s and 60s always maintained it was a coup. That’s his grandad below


 

Attachments

  • F19254AD-AC48-436E-BFBF-C9ABEE2B6F2D.jpeg
    F19254AD-AC48-436E-BFBF-C9ABEE2B6F2D.jpeg
    134.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Back
Top