bentaz wrote:I like cheese.

bentaz wrote:I like cheese.
Oldbloke wrote:Or this:
Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/1996 Sessions
HB 1274 - Death penalty; guillotine provisions
<<Genesis93>> wrote:When was superiority mentioned?
<<Genesis93>> wrote:
As far as the current calls of 'RACIST!" echoing around the joint at Pauline because she want the royal commish into Islam..... someone needs to tell the presstitutes and sundry mouthpieces that Islam is not a .....um..... race.......yeah, details, shemtails....
adam wrote:
Pauline stands for something that they hate. They can't argue against her policies because unlike some other politicians she priorities truth and facts above political correctness.
Gwion wrote:
"Royal Commission into Islam"?
A royal commission into exactly what about islam?
Then, after she has installed mandatory & permanent surveillance for all muslims; what next? .
Gwion wrote:Ok. But we do have separation of church and state. We have laws that govern Australians, not some Australians and not others. I agree we should allow no concessions for sharia law or any other law that is contrary to the laws of Australia and i don't think we are in danger of that happening because, as you point out, it is unconstitutional..
As for no-one criticising Japan. I had no idea they had religiously based surveillance and i'm quite happy to criticise them for it!
AS for human rights violations in muslim regimes; while it is absolutely abhorrent; we do have our own human rights issues, both past and present, to face.
bentaz wrote:Those damned Irish, the yellow peril, all them wogs, bloody Africans, not to mention the queers that come to our country and take our jobs n steal our women!
Once the Muslims start cooking we'll accept them, the way to a countries heart is through its stomach.
Our kids n grandkids will find someone else to hate and I for one hope it's the Dutch. Pot smoking bicycle ride windmill loving freaks..........
Gwion wrote:Baron: I get that Sharia law IS BAD.
Point is, there will be no sharia law here, so there's no point getting all in a tizz about it.
They can keep asking and we can keep saying NO.![]()
Gwion wrote:
Baron: I get that Sharia law IS BAD.
Point is, there will be no sharia law here, so there's no point getting all in a tizz about it.
They can keep asking and we can keep saying NO.![]()
Gwion wrote:adam wrote:
Pauline stands for something that they hate. They can't argue against her policies because unlike some other politicians she priorities truth and facts above political correctness.
Hanson's policies are very thinly veiled appeal to those who want to go back to the 'white Australia policy'. Beyond that, there is very little, if any, substance to anything she has to say.
Gwion wrote:If people are practicing elements of Sharia Law that contravene the laws of Australia or it's constitution, then they stand open to prosecution and penalty for breaking the laws of the land. They are, in effect, criminals like any other.
It doesn't matter how many muslims are in the senate, they cannot allow a law that is unconstitutional. Well, they can, but it cannot be upheld by the courts, as it is unconstitutional.
bladeracer wrote:Gwion wrote:If people are practicing elements of Sharia Law that contravene the laws of Australia or it's constitution, then they stand open to prosecution and penalty for breaking the laws of the land. They are, in effect, criminals like any other.
It doesn't matter how many muslims are in the senate, they cannot allow a law that is unconstitutional. Well, they can, but it cannot be upheld by the courts, as it is unconstitutional.
Aren't the motorcycle association laws unconstitutional? in what way?
Wasn't taking firearms from legal law-abiding owners unconstitutional? apparently covered by the fair and just compensation clause: even if it is against 'the vibe' of it all.
Isn't the assumption of guilt from speed camera fines unconstitutional? in what way? it is taken as proof of violation, which can be challenged in court, like any other charge.
Why couldn't they amend the constitution to make it "constitutional"? because that is unconstitutional and would require a referendum in which the entire country votes.
[/quote]Gwion wrote:Why couldn't they amend the constitution to make it "constitutional"? because that is unconstitutional and would require a referendum in which the entire country votes.
bentaz wrote:Those damned Irish, the yellow peril, all them wogs, bloody Africans, not to mention the queers that come to our country and take our jobs n steal our women!
Once the Muslims start cooking we'll accept them, the way to a countries heart is through its stomach.
Our kids n grandkids will find someone else to hate and I for one hope it's the Dutch. Pot smoking bicycle ride windmill loving freaks..........
Gwion wrote:A good speech in support of firearms owners. It comes under the "very little, if any" clause of my statement.
It does not excuse or cancel out the mountains of crap, blatantly racist remarks and underlying drivers behind her politics.