Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Lidia Thorpe

Jump to new
IFocus said:
One thing about Lidia Thorpe (who is not really my cup of tea but good on her) is that it's great to see the authentic Australian value on display that built our nation, that's the same value Australian diggers had while dying in the trenches.

Larrikinism a beautiful thing but sadly lacking in this thread.

Grovel on everybody.
Click to expand...
Larrikinism is one thing, and the parliamentary record is full it. But that's not what Lidia was doing. It was crass stupidity by a psychologically unwell person which would make parliament and society dysfunctional. Anyone supporting what is essentially ideological Tourette's syndrome as an exemplary of behaviour is an asinine moron (tautology intentional) and a moral vandal.

It is no surprise who the author of this verbal fecal matter is.
 
I am apoplectic with rage and tried to avoid this thread or any ideation of that scumbag.
Lydia Thorpe, a demonic blend of permanent victimhood and race grifter along with rabid feminism and a total lack of shame.
There's a sort of paradoxical social power that comes with not only utterly ignoring one's own degradation but loudly proclaiming it.
She dons a possom corpse outfit to display aboriginal authenticity, fkg bollocks.
I like Charles and if you don't then you can refer to him with a bit of human respect here.
 
It was brought up on radio this morning by Senator Brigette McKenzie that Lydia Thorpe has actually broken her Oath of Allegiance that she signed when she entered Parliament.

<quote>
Members of Parliament

The Australian Constitution requires that those elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives swear or solemnly affirm their allegiance to the Crown. Senators and members are required to both ‘make and subscribe’ (sign) an oath or affirmation. The same oath and affirmation have been used since Federation and can only be changed by constitutional referendum.

Section 42 of the Constitution states:

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.38

The Schedule to the Constitution contains the wording of the oath and affirmation: Oath

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God!

Affirmation

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.39

NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.40

</quote>
constitutionwatch.com.au

Parliamentary Oaths. - Constitution Watch

Members of Parliament The Australian Constitution requires that those elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives swear or solemnly affirm their allegiance to the Crown. Senators and members are required to both ‘make and subscribe’ (sign) an oath or affirmation. The same oath and...
constitutionwatch.com.au constitutionwatch.com.au

It will be interesting to see if this has legal ramifications for her. If people sign an Agreement they are expected to abide by it.

Does this mean she can be thrown out of Parliament?
 
IFocus said:
No one here voted for the big eared adulterous twit, We do not live in a democracy as long as the groverling bedwetting conservatives along with anyone else who opposes electing those that govern us and so that if we don't like them then we puck them off.

With the big eared adulterous twit that's not possible and remains our head of state regardless.

One thing about Lidia Thorpe (who is not really my cup of tea but good on her) is that it's great to see the authentic Australian value on display that built our nation, that's the same value Australian diggers had while dying in the trenches.

Larrikinism a beautiful thing but sadly lacking in this thread.

Grovel on everybody.

​

Click to expand...
Still focusing on the ideology, rather than the practicalities.
Typical Labor, always trying to fix things that aren't broken and ending up with a bigger mess than they started with.
 
sptrawler said:
Still focusing on the ideology, rather than the practicalities.
Typical Labor, always trying to fix things that aren't broken and ending up with a bigger mess than they started with.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Labor but groverling to Big Ears and holding him in high esteem speaks more to Australians imaturety about who we are and ATM there is only one Australian that's made it clear they an't groveling.

There is of course the possible security advantage that Big Ears is our great leader should China invade the UK might send some Nepalese Guras over to help defend us as when Trump gets up we will be on our own.

TBH with Queen Liz gone I just cringe watching the Royals.
 
I didn't get to vote for Albanese labor leader. I didn't get to vote for Albanese as prime Minister. How is that democracy?

I also didn't get to vote for Lidia Yet her votes in parliament impact me and my life How is that democracy.

She succeeded exactly like raygun succeeded... What should be an irrelevant talentless person ignored by everyone now all over our lips and keyboards getting attention getting publicity.
SirRumpole said:
This woman is a juvenile twit who needs medical treatment in my opinion.

www.abc.net.au

Lidia Thorpe says she swore allegiance to the queen's 'hairs', not her heirs, after King Charles protest

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has offered an extraordinary defence of whether she breached her parliamentary oath when she interrupted a royal reception, claiming she in fact pledged allegiance to the queen's "hairs" rather than her "heirs".
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
That is literally something I would have said to the teacher to get out of something when I was 9 years old in school.

She's like one of those horrible university professors who knows they have tenure and knows they are untouchable. Isn't she guaranteed a pension for life now and she's still got another 3 years on the government payroll no matter what? Probably knows after this term she'll pick up some think tank position for a half million and does not need to give a f.
 
Saw this on another forum the poster is a lawyer.


"King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with."
 
IFocus said:
You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it.
Click to expand...
Given that there are about 250 'mobs' that claim ownership of the country, who are you actually going to sign a treaty with?

And if it's to have any meaning it has to become part of the Constitution which means another referendum.

Given the result of the last referendum, what chance do you think it has of passing?
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
Saw this on another forum the poster is a lawyer.


"King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with."
Click to expand...
You don't have to answer, but are you part Aboriginal or closely related by intermarriage etc? Your dedication to this nonsense seems way above the average leftist or cultural Marxist.
 
StockyGuy said:
You don't have to answer, but are you part Aboriginal or closely related by intermarriage etc? Your dedication to this nonsense seems way above the average leftist or cultural Marxist.
Click to expand...

No none of the above but have lived, seen / experienced the tragedy around Aboriginal lives both those that were (all the guys I know are now dead) fully assimilated, partly and those still practicing culture (not many).

Wife does have a relative that's fully initiated (quite rare these days) but that's another story.

I think the failure of Australians to confront and address the Aboriginal issues allowing them to front it all and be accountable (have a Voice) amounts to cowardice.

My sympathy comes from a serious problem that been failed to be addressed and affects many relegating them to 2nd class citizens which as an Australian I find is intolerable.

As for the English Royals I admire the traditions the Poms practice but for Australia it all goes completely against our culture (rejection of authority and everyone is equal absolutely no Lords or Sirs) just find the charade cringeworthy.
 
IFocus said:
No none of the above but have lived, seen / experienced the tragedy around Aboriginal lives both those that were (all the guys I know are now dead) fully assimilated, partly and those still practicing culture (not many).

Wife does have a relative that's fully initiated (quite rare these days) but that's another story.

I think the failure of Australians to confront and address the Aboriginal issues allowing them to front it all and be accountable (have a Voice) amounts to cowardice.

My sympathy comes from a serious problem that been failed to be addressed and affects many relegating them to 2nd class citizens which as an Australian I find is intolerable.

As for the English Royals I admire the traditions the Poms practice but for Australia it all goes completely against our culture (rejection of authority and everyone is equal absolutely no Lords or Sirs) just find the charade cringeworthy.
Click to expand...
I call BS.

There would be scarcely any of us here that do not have Aboriginal friends, acquaintances, possibly even family members, whom we have being able to observe over a long period. Ii

I would go as far as to say that those people with the least amount of Aboriginal contact would be the greater percentage of yes voters IE inner city trendies.

In other words I see that this issue basically comes purely down to ideology, and usually ideology implanted by others ie the leftist hive mind.

Nobody is against giving people a hand up for those who need it, but that is a very different concept to imposing a constitutional apartheid motivated by some sort of perverse white self-hatred.

Australia has voted on both issues (republic and apartheid) and kicked them to the curb, so sit down and stfu.
 
IFocus said:
Zero to minus :)

The point was in Law Charles has no legal standing as per the High Court's ruling in the Mabo case just though it was interesting.
Click to expand...
Seems a matter now of ideology vs practicality and practicality usually wins in the end.
 
SirRumpole said:
Seems a matter now of ideology vs practicality and practicality usually wins in the end.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't image the fact that terra nullius is not a legitimate claim would have any effect on the situation materialy but will certainly remain a rallying point for the disaffected.

In terms of practicality Charley certainly shouldn't be head of state for Australia its a complete nonsense IMHO.
 
IFocus said:
In terms of practicality Charley certainly shouldn't be head of state for Australia its a complete nonsense IMHO.
Click to expand...
The practicality is in trying to change the system. It's been tried once and failed and I can't see a great civil uprising for change.

Why spend another half billion unless there is certainty that it's going to get through?

More good money after bad.
 

Similar threads

UMike
Journey of a booth volunteer 2023 Voice Referendum
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
farmerge
farmerge
christrad
Australian trading US stocks
Replies
15
Views
1K
christrad
christrad
Country Lad
Judging the Quality of a Board of Directors
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Value Hunter
V
sptrawler
Respect or lack thereof
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
sptrawler
sptrawler
ducati916
April DDD
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
7K
ducati916
ducati916
Top