Goat wrote:
I like how your voting system is still pretty good compared to ours
The way the preference system works is ridiculous.
Many people voted for one party only to have it give its votes to another as part of the preference system.
The two major parties tend to give each other their own preferences.
Also as stated the elected reps are puppets and the real power is the massive Australian bureaucracy.
Unlike the USA, the Australian bureaucracy is an ever present factor in every element of our lives.
Goat wrote:
And I'm preeetty sure you need council planning permission for a shed, to remove trees, etc, but knowing people on the council as I do, that's not such a hardship.
That's irrelevant.
In Australia people have even been forced to knock down fences because the council changed their guidelines for aesthetic features of a fence.
The other dodgy thing they do is to allow projects to proceed before they gain proper approval or under go a consultation process.
For example the Tasmanian people have been opposed to a pulp mill development. The pulp mill developer has the government in their pockets. It has been a very high profile case.
The interesting thing was they started preparation work on the pulp mill site before the government approval was granted.
Another example is a telecommunications tower they're building near my parents house. The residents had a right to apply for the proposal to be knocked back before approval's been given.
But the telco has already paid the money to the council and have already acquired the land and begun building works before the consultation and approval processes have been completed.
Goat wrote:
Call me a tyrannical autocrat, but I think that
Quote:
Cannot do anything to buildings that are on a historical register.
is generally a good thing.
I'm a history buff and approve of old buildings being preserved.
However we have a number of buildings that are complete derelict ruins in our city and due to historical restrictions nothing can be done to them.
These buildings are missing walls, the roof and are in some cases completely gutted.
E.G
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/201 ... 811465.htmhttp://pics.livejournal.com/monissaw/pic/005eadp5/g54There are numerous abandoned and derelict buildings in my city that the owners cannot touch due to historical issues.
In the two pictures above, all buildings have been derelict for at least 20 years and every single redevelopment gets knocked back.
Goat wrote:
If we're going to start talking monstrous stuff, as Adveser says, the fact that a certain politician is walking the face of the earth earning himself a fortune after being complicit in the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqis is a good place to start.
Bill Clinton or George Bush?
American endorsed sanctions on Iraq killed half a million Iraqis.
Here's an interesting tid bit:
Apparently an unamed Clinton government official approached Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Hugh Shelton to organise for a U-2 spyplane to be shot down over Iraq so as trigger US action against Iraq.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP
I think the truth of the matter is that the US was always going to invade Iraq one way or another.
Several factors were pushing for this:
1. Unfinished business left after 1991. Many US policy and military officials believed that they needed to finish what they started in Iraq.
2. It would solve problems in Saudi Arabia. Relationships with Saudi Arabia soured due to continued presence of US troops in SA involved in policing air space over Iraq. Get rid of Iraqi threat and that allows the troops to be pulled out.
3. Need for a base with strategic depth to act against Iran and ensure US control in area. As stated Saudi Arabia no longer wanted US troops based there and Qatar and Bahrain lacked strategic depth (i.e. ability to withstand hostile actions). Iraq is perfectly positioned for this.
Oh and we'll add Obama to the list for continuing the pointless war in Afghanistan. They should've learned the lesson the Soviets got in 1980-88.