hardtack

Most illegals arrive by air as valid holiday/working visa holders from places like the USA, China, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, European countries and so on. Assylum seekers are NOT illegals. Can you prove a single thing you have said regarding "most" not fleeing persecution and throwing their papers away? There are plenty of sites where you can find stats regarding illegals (overstayers who hide from the authorities), but please feel free to show us the irrefutable evidence for your claims. YOU buy the spin that the Hansons, Howards (Hanson reinvented) and Abbotts of this world sell to you. These people would not be taking the risks that they take unless they were desperate... and I think even you might realise that.

A chemist would read it as "un-ion-ized" A builder would read it as "union-ized" capiche?

That reminded me of a funny tweet I saw yesterday - something about asking a chemist and a builder their response to the word "unionized".

I believe RR is holding down a small unchartered Pacific island, on his own and unaware that the war is over.

Did he have a good beer snake going?

So let me see if I have got this right... Campbell Brown went berserk with a knife?

Please leave all feuds at the door...the original poster should be left to shine like a shaft of gold when all around is darkness (see Monty Python's Oscar Wilde for more detail)

And the first nomination for worst post of 2014 is...

So, the Gonzo part derives from a love of all things Hunter S Thompson and the requisite excesses? I was never a fan of smoking dope as I found it too antisocial for my tastes and so took the what was then referred to as, the juice freak route. LSD, mescaline (synthetic), psilocybin etc were all dabbled in, but still nothing could quite equal the alcohol in appealing to my extrovert nature. These days I indulge very little in anything, but still do enjoy the very occasional drinks session.

They did a quick interview which I mostly missed, but said he was loving it at the Dees and loving it under Roos. Someone else can provide a more detailed account?

Yes, males and females do have different traits and some males have what are generally accepted as female traits and some women exhibit what are generally considered male traits; something that is not uncommon in same sex relationships...only the physical attributes are obviously different. Another thing to consider, particularly in male same sex relationships, the child is getting a balanced exposure in their formative years at school, particularly when you consider that roughly 80% of teachers to whom children are exposed to for most of their waking hours are female. They are getting plenty of exposure to male and female role models. Also consider that roughly 15% of families are single parent families...by your reckoning BH, that will result in a hell of a lot of messed up kids who will not have had a well balanced family environment. But I don't see any anecdotal evidence to suggest that is in fact the case...nor do I see any that says children raised in same sex parent families are in any way disadvantaged. Let's face it, if we were to really go back to what is natural, children should probably be raised by the "tribe" as opposed to being restricted to just two parents.

Sorry, that just makes no sense at all. It would be far more sensible to say that the best opportunities come from growing up in a loving and caring environment.

Probably not RF, but if I was creating a lot more rubbish and using more than my fair share of landfill, then I suppose I would have to wear those extra costs.

No tatts? You just eliminated three of our best - Jones, Howe and Clark.

This subject keeps getting raised here, but from my recollection, in the last couple of seasons under Roos, the Swans were playing some very exciting football that combined tight defensive structures with fast attacking footy.

Understand RF, but in reality I am paying to dispose of my rubbish... it's called rates :-)

You're right DP, it's not worth the effort of refuting it as every side can interpret these events however they like. Sea ice is not necessarily indicative of global warming or cooling and, as one of the scientists on the recently freed Russian boat said, the current levels of sea ice are a result of weather as opposed to climate. It was however brought to my attention that the New American is a part of the right wing organisation The John Birch Society... for a conservative, BH tends to cite the right wing press one hell of a lot. And Clint... there is no question that has not been asked before (some funny and some useful answers in here): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2161619/posts

I'm considering donning a brown suit, dusting off the old bicycle and going door to door with a copy of the club charter in my hand.

You and A de C are both right... Randy Savage died of cardiac arrhythmia while driving. Skull Murphy died in a car crash, but that is going way back to the 60's - 70's.

Agreed DC... I think none of us would survive that.

I would recommend that you do a little searching on James Delingpole (the author). It was recommended to me and it is very enlightening with regards to the voracity of BH's sources. This was one quote I was shown that was particularly amusing considering he is promoting himself as some kind of expert after 10 years of "covering this territory": http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole "On the programme itself (BBC Horizons), when he was pitched against a real Nobel Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse, he came off second best. He said that "it is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers." ...However, he admits that he doesn't "have the scientific expertise" to deal with the contents of the peer reviewed literature. Instead, he sees himself as an "interpreter of interpretations" " For someone who denies being right wing BH, you sure like to source a lot of your "information" from those who are happy to fly that flag.

I believe that man is warming the planet at an ever increasing rate since the start of the Industrial Revolution. I believe that over time if nothing is done, yes it will become dangerous, even if it isn't at this moment in time. For the sake of my kids and generations to come, I would prefer to see preventative action... you obviously are happy for someone else to clean up the mess once it has happened. After all, by that time it won't be your problem, will it.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you. You invent scenarios, convince yourself that you know the motivations of every poster you disagree with and finally convince yourself that you actually know what you are talking about.

You're really losing it now aren't you... no mention of Carbon Dioxide, yet you draw that conclusion... you are unable to comprehend the intent of my statement which says far more about your limitations than it does mine.

Yes, I think you are being contrary... I also believe you are an attention seeker. Oh, and I can't say I really care how many threads you have or haven't posted in. I'm surprised that someone like you who loves to belittle other posters whose opinions don't match your own, even feels the need to have to explain himself in that way. As for the tax... if you expected events and conditions that have taken a couple of centuries to manifest themselves will suddenly turn around over night because of a tax, well, what can I say? To be completely honest, I have noticed very little change in my financial situation since the Carbon Tax was introduced, and I expect that if and when it is dismantled, there will be little or no change then as well. My main fear is that this govt is simply obsessed with dismantling everything that was put in place by the previous govt (and beyond - Medicare for example).