 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The father probably left the Army because he continually failed weapons safety.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
People who leave anonymous notes on your car when you're parked outside your own house but in front of their opposite driveway.
Now usually I park further down so they have easy access, but someone had parked in front of my house further down so I took the next available, fully intending to move when the other person left.
Go out to move my car and there's a note saying I'm parked illegally (it's not). Seriously, if you can't figure out how to park when someone is across the road from your driveway then hand in your license. Why can't you go and knock on someone's door and nicely request they move because you're too inept to reverse in rather than leave a poorly spelled, passive aggressive note on their windscreen.
I'm going full Zen mode to avoid angry/aggressive response, because passive aggressive arseholes are best dealt with through actual aggression, but nothing will be served by it other than my ego. So I'll breathe deeply and be like water, flowing around the ugly turd across the road. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | People who leave anonymous notes on your car when you're parked outside your own house but in front of their opposite driveway.
Now usually I park further down so they have easy access, but someone had parked in front of my house further down so I took the next available, fully intending to move when the other person left.
Go out to move my car and there's a note saying I'm parked illegally (it's not). Seriously, if you can't figure out how to park when someone is across the road from your driveway then hand in your license. Why can't you go and knock on someone's door and nicely request they move because you're too inept to reverse in rather than leave a poorly spelled, passive aggressive note on their windscreen.
I'm going full Zen mode to avoid angry/aggressive response, because passive aggressive arseholes are best dealt with through actual aggression, but nothing will be served by it other than my ego. So I'll breathe deeply and be like water, flowing around the ugly turd across the road. |
Nah, wait til dark and go over the road, jack their car up, take the wheels and leave it on blocks and just to be a cnut pump a full can of expanding foam straight into the exhaust/muffler. Or petrol tank if you REALLY feel like a cnut.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Why can't you go and knock on someone's door and nicely request they move because you're too inept to reverse in rather than leave a poorly spelled, passive aggressive note on their windscreen. |
It's a real problem with our society, I think. We're increasingly scared of talking to other people, so we've become a society of conflict avoiders and passive aggressive note writers. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I understand his Wife is ill but WTF is with the Victorian Police Commissioner walking away a few weeks after the ALP won power?
He couldn't have just gone on leave and walked away at the end of January?
As for his wife and privacy, he bought her illness up as a reason. Notice I said reason not excuse.
I don't think I'm heartless more I think I am realistic about a professional person in a very Public Politically appointed role resigning the moment a new Government is elected. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
He is, of course, a former member of the Liberal Party. But he has been an excellent chief and seems very professional in all his dealings: is there any reason we shouldn't simply take his announcement at face value?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Precisely Tannin! 
If the man has personal issues to deal with then who am I to begrudge his resignation even though the Labor Party has only been in power for a month in Victoria.
The same could be said for Simon Overland who resigned courtesy of intense public pressure a few months after the Liberals were voted into power in late 2010.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | He is, of course, a former member of the Liberal Party. |
Well that explains a lot doesn't it, too me it does anyway. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| In any case, Where specifically, does [quote] Well that explains doesn't it him or her it do it? |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BIOYA tinhead! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | He is, of course, a former member of the Liberal Party. |
Well that explains a lot doesn't it, too me it does anyway. |
Being a member of the party for just six months in 1999 doesn't explain his decision to resign today.
You're just trying to find excuses as to why he resigned that simply aren't there or haven't been alluded to. I'm willing to believe he resigned because his wife is ill unless other reasons or motivations come to light in the future.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I actually find myself thinking this is not all that outrageous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069
| Quote: | IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.
This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.
Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.
These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.
Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.
It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.
As commissioner Tim Carmody wrote in the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry report in 2013, ‘‘some families will never rise to the challenge or have the capacity or commitment needed to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world’’. |
|
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | I actually find myself thinking this is not all that outrageous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069
| Quote: | IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.
This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.
Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.
These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.
Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.
It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.
As commissioner Tim Carmody wrote in the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry report in 2013, ‘‘some families will never rise to the challenge or have the capacity or commitment needed to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world’’. |
|
Spot on. You shouldn't have children until you can afford a nanny to care for them while both parents work 14 hour days.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
/\ lol!
That's the perfect response!
That's a little harsh 1061. But it's also a legit point! Too many single mums with lots of kids all on benefits, and dead beat dads. However, how do you split the ones who made that choice, away from those who's husbands/partners walked, died, or abused them? While I'm guessing they would not be inclined to have children if that was the case, I still wouldn't want to impose more pain on them. We need a more personal, but fair way of dealing with welfare, full stop. if we stop the cheats, (yes including those having kids to get welfare) there will be more for those who really need it.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
