Thread: Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Originally Posted by ohleaky1

never said it directly affects my freedom... i said how can australia as a whole say its free while still under british rule! what is your idea of a free country?

That comments reminds me of the story of the wife who complained to her husband that she was never allowed to make decisions.

He told her that from now on she could make all the big decisions and he would only make smaller ones.

She thought that was wonderful until he said, "OK, you can make the big decision about whether the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and I will make the smaller decision about whether we should buy a new fridge."

In spite of my quite strong republican leanings, I honestly can't see how my personal freedom is affected by having Elizabeth Windsor and my head of state.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Yes in this case also Australia is free because have the freedom of choice I guess that you have to do a bit of OS "touring" to know what it is freedom or not for us the people that suffered under dictatorship and other political persecution

We live and learn and is heaps easy to learn from the experience of others

freedom of choice ... so what is freedom of choice Churaco? have travelled alot , asia , europe, America(American wife) ,Canada, spent a lot of time in Austria and have seen what has happened in countries due to dictatorship aswell axs political persecution. I have found through my travels the things i love and miss about A ustralia though this does,nt make us a free country. This is my point of view on things . little bit of freedom there having my own view on something

Originally Posted by Offender90

Just out of curiosity, how has the fact that Australia is a "monarchy" directly affected your freedom?

I'll go one step further: Just out of curiosity, how has the fact that Australia is a "constitutional monarchy" directly affected your freedom?

Given that in a constitutional monarchy the "monarch" is only a figurehead with little real if any power.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

I'll go one step further: Just out of curiosity, how has the fact that Australia is a "constitutional monarchy" directly affected your freedom?

Given that in a constitutional monarchy the "monarch" is only a figurehead with little real if any power.

once again...... i have never stated it affects me personally ! have only put across my point of view on things.(no one has to share my point of view) . y do we pay someone to be the queens rep here in australia if she is only a figurehead?

Originally Posted by ohleaky1

once again...... i have never stated it affects me personally ! have only put across my point of view on things.(no one has to share my point of view) . y do we pay someone to be the queens rep here in australia if she is only a figurehead?

We would have to pay a president if we were a republic and the main purpose of the President is to be the figurehead (Head of State). The benefit of a constitutional monarchy with a hereditary assent is that we don't have to hold elections to select a new one every three to five years. This removes all the corruption that we see in the election of presidents throughout the world and we only have to pay for the real monarch when ever they choose to visit and we would pay have to pay a similar ammount when any other head of state visits.

The Governor General of Australia is the one who holds the constitutional power, while the Queen appoints them they are actually appointed only after the Head of Government (Prime Minister) recommends them. The Governor General's only real power is to dismiss a government. Then we get to have elections and select a new one.

The way I see it we are getting a good deal and we get to be in the Commonwealth of Nations and have extra sporting events to go to and watch.

So why don't we have freedom?

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

We would have to pay a president if we were a republic and the main purpose of the President is to be the figurehead (Head of State). The benefit of a constitutional monarchy with a hereditary assent is that we don't have to hold elections to select a new one every three to five years. This removes all the corruption that we see in the election of presidents throughout the world and we only have to pay for the real monarch when ever they choose to visit and we would pay have to pay a similar ammount when any other head of state visits.

The Governor General of Australia is the one who holds the constitutional power, while the Queen appoints them they are actually appointed only after the Head of Government (Prime Minister) recommends them. The Governor General's only real power is to dismiss a government. Then we get to have elections and select a new one.

The way I see it we are getting a good deal and we get to be in the Commonwealth of Nations and have extra sporting events to go to and watch.

So why don't we have freedom?

Diana

do we pay former prime ministers huge $ for the rest of there lives after doing there term or terms? yes! america? no! this conversation could be never endin , what one person thinks is right does,nt mean u have to agree! all comes down to your own opinion

Originally Posted by ohleaky1

never said it directly affects my freedom... i said how can australia as a whole say its free while still under british rule! what is your idea of a free country?

This is completely off the original topic, but here goes:

Although the Qeen's representative (Governor-General at the federal level and Governor at the state level) has significant executive powers, they are seldomly exercised and usually with good reason. They';ve been used twice in Australia to remove a government from power (once federal & once state) forcing early elections, and in both instances, the opposition won (i.e. it was what the majority of Australian Citizens wanted). Based on those, "Brittish rule" has if anything fostered greater political freedom in Australia.

As to the all important question of what do I consider a "free country"? That's a very open-ended and in some sense philosophical question.

I'd say a free country is one that empowers you to be in control of your own future within a larger framework protecting the freedom of others. Its philosophical, but at its core is equal access to opportunities for all. Australia is one of the "freer" countries that I've lived in / been in / known of / read about, but there's always room for improvement:

1.) Education System - A schooling system providing enough general knowledge to make one's own informed decisions in life. Teach kids to think for themselves / assess ideas on their merits - at the moment I think its a bit narrow. The current system produces good specialised workers, not necessarily good thinkers (if it did, credit card companies would not be thriving as they are, now would they?).

2.) Media - Having more independant media outlets and more stringent media cross ownership laws - currently most (both TV and print) are controlled by several very powerful people / groups. Way too much power to influence public thinking and too little accountability for what they print (Why do Packer, Murdoch, Stokes et al get away with paying so few taxes? - which politician is going to take them on?). How can we really be "free to make decisions" if the information we're basing our decisions on are false? Advertising falls into the same category - from a very early age, we are conditioned to think a certain way through advertising - perhaps if we succeeded educating our children to think for themselves and evaluate ideas on their own merits, perhaps it wouldn't matter, but currently it does... and the list goes on...

... my conspiratorial $0.02 worth.

Originally Posted by CraigE

You are a clown, straight and true. You have not even provided any factual evidence Obama has stopped WW3. That is perhaps one of the most ludicrous statements I have heard recently and if it satisfies you to try an belittle me then go your hardest because it is you that looks silly purporting that Barrack Obama has single handedly stopped WW3.
A lot of the stuff you mentioned infact started and had its roots way before Obama took office.
Yes he may be a good American president, but he is by no means great yet and at this stage has only talked the talk and not walked the walk. He can sprout on about all his intentions but without the support of congress he will flail.
The whole issue was about the peace prize and peoples opinions and quite frankly he did not deserve it.

Please re read my post, diversion is not a show of knowledge of which you have demonstrated nothing. my last comment was basically go fined out for your self, just because you haven't been forced feed some info on the 6 o'clock news dont mean it didn't happen.. my questions were as i stated all with in Obamas presidency, this will exclude A, Iraq and Vietnam.

to clarify, which conflict within Obamas presidency did a sovereign nation lose over 1000 regular troops ( standing army) with in a 12 hour period to an invading regular army from another sovereign nation. IE an invasion in the traditional sense. What did the US do to stop hostilities and what has the UN done since as well as Nato?