Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Australia pursing peace, preparing for war

259 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)

And sky news AU not too happy with the current American leadership

 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer

Scott morrison is just another tony blair or David cameron serving his master bankers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Scott morrison is just another tony blair or David cameron serving his master bankers.

So everything he said about china is false then?  Is that what you're saying?  If you can't attack the message attack the messenger?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So everything he said about china is false then?  Is that what you're saying?  If you can't attack the message attack the messenger?

 

Prime ministers don't pursue peace, they never pursue peace, they do what they are ordered to do by the bankers and the legal authorities.   You know when a politican is lying, his lips are moving.

This is quite relevant.   Who and what does this prime minister serve?   Is it the people of the commonwealth of Australia, or unidroit and the bankers?  

He being faithful to the managercy? what is a managercy??  If you can't find definition, who is he serving???  An Oath has to serve GOD???   Is God managercy??? 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
44 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So everything he said about china is false then?  Is that what you're saying?  If you can't attack the message attack the messenger?

is this relevant today?  Sell the peace line while the undertones are war.  FEAR is the perfect way to ask for war.  Watch the people go nuts when the prime minister declares war, but he was only ever after peace!!  

This is WW3 after all....

ggg.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
58 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Scott morrison is just another tony blair or David cameron serving his master bankers.

Merchant Bankers?

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
19 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

 

Prime ministers don't pursue peace, they never pursue peace, they do what they are ordered to do by the bankers and the legal authorities.   You know when a politican is lying, his lips are moving.

This is quite relevant.   Who and what does this prime minister serve?   Is it the people of the commonwealth of Australia, or unidroit and the bankers?  

He being faithful to the managercy? what is a managercy??  If you can't find definition, who is he serving???  An Oath has to serve GOD???   Is God managercy??? 

Fair enough :tu:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
22 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

 

Prime ministers don't pursue peace, they never pursue peace, they do what they are ordered to do by the bankers and the legal authorities.   You know when a politican is lying, his lips are moving.

This is quite relevant.   Who and what does this prime minister serve?   Is it the people of the commonwealth of Australia, or unidroit and the bankers?  

He being faithful to the managercy? what is a managercy??  If you can't find definition, who is he serving???  An Oath has to serve GOD???   Is God managercy??? 

A truly idiotic argument formed from an obvious pismronunciation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
12 minutes ago, acute said:

Merchant Bankers?

;)

Is that rhyming slang?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
1 minute ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Is that rhyming slang?

I couldn't possibly say.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, acute said:

I couldn't possibly say.

Ravi

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

A truly idiotic argument formed from an obvious pismronunciation.

Is this the fork handles or was it 4 candles argument?:lol:

so if you think he said her majesty queen of Australia? who is the queen of Australia?   Last time I looked the queen of Britain looked after Australia.   However, she no longer reigns over Australia because Australia signed over to UNIDROIT.

https://www.unidroit.org/

Australia is under private law, so when you thought you heard 'majesty' it was 'managercy'  because there is no queen of Australia and the queen no longer runs Australia under common law.

Edited by Dreamer screamer
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer

https://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/membership

Australia is under private law under unidroit.  This is the equivalent of Mc donalds running the country and being under their policy.

https://www.globalnegotiator.com/international-trade/dictionary/unidroit/

UNIDROIT

The Institute for the Unification of Private Law is an international governmental organization headquartered in Rome whose tasks are to study needs and methods for modernising, harmonising and coordinating private and in particular commercial law as between States and groups of States and to formulate uniform law instruments, principles and rules to achieve those objectives. Membership of UNIDROIT is restricted to States acceding to the UNIDROIT Statute. UNIDROIT’s 63 member States are drawn from the five continents and represent a variety of different legal, economic and political systems as well as different cultural backgrounds.

So who does the police work under?  Are they private law acting for ROME?  Unless you can provide evidence for a queen and the common law:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, OverSword said:

So everything he said about china is false then?  Is that what you're saying?  If you can't attack the message attack the messenger?

Like most media today, it's always overblown. Bad news sells. The truth is somewhere in the middle. It always is. Always two sides to every story. Perhaps a few articles from China for perspective? Remember, I'm a humanist. I don't pick sides. Okay, that sounded bad on my part. I don't pick sides till I'm absolutely sure, then it's on the side of what's best for humanity. People are people. Doesn't matter where they live. Govt's on the other hand aren't people. They are all power mongers. What are China's people saying? Oh wait, they can't because of govt muzzling. Kinda the same direction the Republican govt was headed. Oh, wait, their still doing it. Something, something, making protesting illegal in some states. Something, something, restricting a woman's choice to abort mongloid fetuses.  Look to your own before you start accusing. You might see similarities. 

Edited by Hankenhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
8 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Like most media today, it's always overblown. Bad news sells. The truth is somewhere in the middle. It always is. Always two sides to every story. Perhaps a few articles from China for perspective? Remember, I'm a humanist. I don't pick sides. Okay, that sounded bad on my part. I don't pick sides till I'm absolutely sure, then it's on the side of what's best for humanity. People are people. Doesn't matter where they live. Govt's on the other hand aren't people. They are all power mongers. What are China's people saying? Oh wait, they can't because of govt muzzling. Kinda the same direction the Republican govt was headed. Oh, wait, their still doing it. Something, something, making protesting illegal in some states. Something, something, restricting a woman's choice to abort mongloid fetuses.  Look to your own before you start accusing. You might see similarities. 

Cognitive dissonance?  I don't pick sides until I know who is the winning side?:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Cognitive dissonance?  I don't pick sides until I know who is the winning side?:unsure2:

Is the winning side always right? Does might make right? I pick the side that most benefits mankind as a whole. One article does not mean truth. Many articles, however is a good start. Still doesn't mean it's true, though, especially when lazy media copy/pasta from other media, and call it truth. If you call one story truth, I'll call you too lazy to verify. Research is your friend. Especially with the internet.

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Is this the fork handles or was it 4 candles argument?:lol:

so if you think he said her majesty queen of Australia? who is the queen of Australia?   Last time I looked the queen looked after Australia.   However, she no longer reigns over Australia because Australia signed over to UNIDROIT.

https://www.unidroit.org/

Australia is under private law, so when you thought you heard 'majesty' it was 'managercy'  because there is no queen of Australia and the queen no longer runs Australia under common law.

It's obvious that he meant 'majesty'.

Here's Scotty at his last swearing in.

The Queen of Australia is defined in the Constituition.  And, Common Law is followed in Australia until the Law is codified.  The way you are using common law is not the standard usage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

t. I don't pick sides. Okay, that sounded bad on my part. I don't pick sides till I'm absolutely sure, then it's on the side of what's best for humanity.

We’ll be sure not to pick the side that is currently carrying out an actual genocide on the Uhigurs.  Seems like choosing against Ghina is a bit of a no- brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

It's obvious that he meant 'majesty'.

Here's Scotty at his last swearing in.

The Queen of Australia is defined in the Constituition.  And, Common Law is followed in Australia until the Law is codified.  The way you are using common law is not the standard usage. 

Ok where is this queen of Australia??  Can you produce him or her??  Common law is cause no harm, loss, injury.   How can it be codified?   Could you explain common law then please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, OverSword said:

And sky news AU not too happy with the current American leadership

 

Sky news au isn't very credible. It's a right wing media sources that most don't watch. I don't know anyone at all personally who rates or watches it. I'd say it's more like Vanity Fair or the National Enquirer.

I'd definitely seek more sources on this. The ABC comes to mind. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
5 hours ago, OverSword said:

So everything he said about china is false then?  Is that what you're saying?  If you can't attack the message attack the messenger?

  • Actually if you can't immediately destroy the source of the message, you can certainly get satisfaction out of killing the messenger. This has been the policy of governments for thousands of years, so why change it now?:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Sky news au isn't very credible. It's a right wing media sources that most don't watch. I don't know anyone at all personally who rates or watches it. I'd say it's more like Vanity Fair or the National Enquirer.

I'd definitely seek more sources on this. The ABC comes to mind. 

Do they also promote stories of women having Alien  abuse with Lobster claws as hands like the National Enquirer?:lol: You know what they say about people who use the Nation Enquirer as media source, that those people gave Enquiring Minds. Until today, after watching the videos in the OP and on page 2, I finally realizes what that actually means. It clear identifies the readers of Papers like that of being gullible and easily swayed by hyperbolt and propaganda designed to keep those people from understanding the truth. 

Thanks for identifying that media source Sky News AU, I will add it to list of propaganda and Right-Winged Sites. Below is what I found when I Factcheck that media service.

Extreme Right-Wing Bias.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

The major problem with the site listed below and it explanation it all. The site is owned by Rupert Murdock, who also owns Fox News and that has a very very checked past from being involved in hacking phone conversation to gather political information and other information he could use against his rivals. But, that us only the tip of a very large Iceberg, intentionally keeps the truth hidden fro many across the globe.

EXTREME RIGHT BIAS

Sky News Australia is currently operated by Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (ANC), a subsidiary of News Corp Australia, a part of News Corp and owned by Rupert Murdoch.Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (ANC) also owns the major Sky News Extra, Sky News Weather Channel, and New Zealand News Channel. For more on News Corp-owned media in Australia, please see here.  Revenue is derived through advertising and subscription fees.

Take Care my friend and thanks again:tu:

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Ok where is this queen of Australia??  Can you produce him or her??  Common law is cause no harm, loss, injury.   How can it be codified?   Could you explain common law then please.

 

How would suggest I fulfil such a silly request as producing an entity of any sort? But here is the act.  It's not defined in the Constution, but by act.

Quote

Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth)

This document makes Queen Elizabeth II 'Queen of Australia'

https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-28.html

Quote

BASIC LEGAL EXPRESSIONS

Common law

The common law system is the legal system followed in Australia, inherited from the United Kingdom. Common law is developed by judges on a case by case basis, building on the precedent and interpretation of earlier court decisions. Written laws (Acts of Parliament) may be made on matters not covered by case law or with the intention of overriding case law. ...

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_23_-_Basic_legal_expressions

Quote

Common law foundations

2.2        The rights, freedoms and privileges set out in the Terms of Reference have a long and distinguished heritage. Many have been recognised in Australia, England and other common law countries for centuries. They form part of the history of the common law, embodying key moments in constitutional history, such as the sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215,[1] the settlement of parliamentary supremacy following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the enactment of the Bill of Rights Act 1688.[2] They were recognised and developed by the courts and some were declared and affirmed by historic statutes and further developed by modern legislation.

...

2.19     The Constitution does not directly and entirely protect many of the rights, freedoms and privileges listed in the ALRC’s Terms of Reference. One reason the Constitution does not expressly protect most civil rights, Professor Helen Irving writes, was the ‘general reserve about directly including policy in the Constitution, instead of powers subsequently to enact policy’.

2.9        ... Whether the introduction of a bill of rights in Australia is desirable is widely debated,[13] and draws in part upon historical arguments about whether the courts or parliaments are better guardians of individual rights.[14]

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/2-rights-and-freedoms-in-context/common-law-foundations/

How do they codify common or case law?  By parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Sky news au isn't very credible. It's a right wing media sources that most don't watch. I don't know anyone at all personally who rates or watches it. I'd say it's more like Vanity Fair or the National Enquirer.

I'd definitely seek more sources on this. The ABC comes to mind. 

@OverSword, If your interested, here is one of Sky News' stars.

 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.