Wanting to Retire and move out of Florida

[Biblicist]

Until my 30s.

This would mean that you have a pretty good understanding with how Australians simply thrive on sarcasm and especially situational irony. . . we especially enjoy this type of humour when others don't realise that it is being employed.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

This would mean that you have a pretty good understanding with how Australians simply thrive on sarcasm and especially situational irony. . . we especially enjoy this type of humour when others don't realise that it is being employed.

Indeed. And its quite hilarious using it on my unsuspecting friends and in laws here.

 

[Biblicist]

Indeed. And its quite hilarious using it on my unsuspecting friends and in laws here.

How did you go with explaining how our kids ride kangaroos to school. I've always found it hard to explain why our older kids use kangaroos and our littlies use wallabies; as for the loop-snakes and drop-bears these poor yanks just don't seem to get it.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

How did you go with explaining how our kids ride kangaroos to school. I've always found it hard to explain why our older kids use kangaroos and our littlies use wallabies; as for the loop-snakes and drop-bears these poor yanks just don't seem to get it.

I restrict myself to drop bears. This official Australian Museum site is invaluable: Drop Bear - Australian Museum

This ones good too: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049182.2012.731307

 

[Biblicist]

I restrict myself to drop bears. This official Australian Museum site is invaluable: Drop Bear - Australian Museum

Yes I've seen this very informative site by Steve Irwin before, too bad that someone has vandalised their website with the government approved drop-bear icon.

By the way, I guess that most people easily pick up on your AUSTRIAN accent; have you found this to be the case.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Yes I've seen this very informative site by Steve Irwin before, too bad that someone has vandalised their website with the government approved drop-bear icon.

By the way, I guess that most people easily pick up on your AUSTRIAN accent; have you found this to be the case.

When I tell people I'm Australian, they don't believe me. I've been told my accent sounds English, "European", South African, and on one occasion, Scottish. By people I suspect were unfamiliar with those accents as they are with 'Strine. I blame Hollywood.

 

[FreedByte]

I must admit that it would be impossible for any country to have a fully deregulated fiscal system; when we compared your system to ours during the housing and monetary crisis, we could be forgiven for thinking that there didn't seem to be much effective legislation in place that was designed to protect the average US citizen from the corporate heavy-weights.

Our banking system could and should be fully deregulated. If it was, there would be little to no malinvestment because banks would actually fear failure and wouldn't need the government to create artificial incentives. Hooray for purist capitalism.

I can see your position as it relates in my view to a theoretical environment, but when this principle is applied to a real-world environment what would you do if you were on a school board where some father was wanting to join the board who was married to another male or to take it to an odd extreme with say to a cat or a dog.

I believe that education should be completely defederalized. If the school board is set up on democratic decision making then make that an elected decision. It's irrelevant, though, because is it moral to prevent someone from joining a school board because they do something immoral, or in this case, state something we disagree with? No, we are called to forgive, not punish. Punishment is up to God.

Requesting new hypothetical please .

If you were to complain that he was an unsuitable individual to hold such an office, would he be able to have your States Legislature prosecute you under some wacky piece of “Hate Crime” legislation as I gather that this would negate any 1st Amendment rights.

Hate speech laws are inherently anti-1st amendment, so what is your point?

We almost had this situation here in my State about five years ago when our State Government (Left leaning) tried to restrain Christians from informing people about the practices of Muslims in other countries – thankfully our countries High Court threw out that zany piece of legislation.

So you were given your freedom of speech back?

Another problem with removing marriage as being only between a man and a woman is that it would allow our children to presume, well, if our politicians don’t think that it’s an issue then same-sex ‘marriage’ and even ‘marriage’ to an animal must be OK.

"If our politicians don't think it's an issue"??? No, the point is that the government is not a dictionary. This is a free speech issue. If someone is concerned about same-sex marriage that doesn't allow them to force a definition of marriage on someone else.

also, there is no "removing marriage as being only between a man and a woman" because you and I and many others will hold this definition and have the right to consider it the only legitimate definition. You are advocating that the government ban all marriages outside of one man and one woman, which seems good at first, until you realize that you have paved away for someone else's definition of marriage, namely sam-sex marriage, being enforced on you. Had we not given the government the power to regulate marriage in the first place, same-sex marriage as a definition would never have been able to be forced on people, so we are best off keeping government wholly out of marriage in the first place

1st Amendment rights
Now that I think about it, considering how the 1st Amendment has been unjustifiably used to restrain the Gospel and the free expression of Christians in the US, would you be better off by maybe abolishing your Constitution? Of course this is being said somewhat tongue-in-cheek but the liberals and atheists certainly seem to be abusing your Constitution so that they can achieve their agendas.

What are you talking about? Modern liberals despise our Constitution. See:

hate speech laws (violation of 1st)
gun control (violation of 2nd)
federalization of government agencies (violation of 10th)
obamacare
etc

The first amendment can be credited with providing a means of spreading the Gospel, not hindering it. True conservatives in America are the defenders of the Constitution.

 

[Biblicist]

When I tell people I'm Australian, they don't believe me. I've been told my accent sounds English, South African, and on one occasion, Scottish. By people I suspect were unfamiliar with those accents as they are with 'Strine. I blame Hollywood.

When my wife and I were in the US for six weeks late last year we found much the same thing.

What did fascinate the many cash-tellers was with the simplicity in recognizing our money in that our notes are all distinctively coloured. One young cashier asked me to hold my polymer ten dollar note up so that she could take a picture of it with her IPhone. I did get some puzzled looks when I mentioned that as our money is polymer and not paper that this is how we launder money in Australia; but of course the odd looks were more common in California.

 

[Biblicist]

I need to go as tea is now ready and the way I'm going this particular topic might very well be erased from the CF servers.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

When my wife and I were in the US for six weeks late last year we found much the same thing.

What did fascinate the many cash-tellers was with the simplicity in recognizing our money in that our notes are all distinctively coloured. One young cashier asked me to hold my polymer ten dollar note up so that she could take a picture of it with her IPhone. I did get some puzzled looks when I mentioned that as our money is polymer and not paper and that this is how we launder money in Australia; but of course the odd looks were more common in California.

I think the exchange rate is $1.04 at present? but my daughter usually trades her polymer birthday and Christmas money with her friends at about 2:1. U.S.:Oz.

ETA. Gotta get some sleep. Nice chatting!

 

[Biblicist]

SearchingforApostlicity:

I shall return!!! Times a bit short for now but I will read your post on my IPhone tonight.

 

[FreedByte]

SearchingforApostlicity:

I shall return!!! Times a bit short for now but I will read your post on my IPhone tonight.

Great!

 

[Biblicist]

Great!

I guess that it would be safe to say that we hold to vastly different ideas with how our governments are to establish Laws and protections for its citizens.

When we go back to the Old Testament we see that the Father had established some incredibly intricate Laws for the Israelites to follow and if God saw that his people could not properly exist without some very specific religious, moral, fiscal, agricultural, social and government Laws then why should we see ourselves as being any different to them?

As an Australian I will understandably see things a bit differently to that of my US counterparts as our countries have developed along different lines. There is of course a great risk with over simplifying matters and as the population of the US greatly outnumbers that of our own then this in itself can create issues that we don’t encounter here in Australia.

Unlike that of the US we have not had to go through a war to gain our independence from Britain nor suffered incredible losses and pain with a civil war which itself grew partly out of the financial greed of numerous slave owners. When my wife and I were in the US late last year, we spent some time in Gettysburg, Baltimore (Fort McHenry) and in the Smithsonian in Washington which allowed us to gain a few insights into the history of your country; it seems that Gettysburg and Baltimore are not places that many Australians seem to go to – much to their detriment! What did become apparent was that as the US Constitution failed to properly define Federal and State Rights that this allowed the situation to develop where the Southern States felt aggrieved with the aggression by Washington.

Now I have no time for the evils of slavery but it seems that the Southern States may have had a strong legal case that the Federal government was intervening in affairs that it had no legal right to enforce outside of their own jurisdiction. If the writers of the early US Constitution had of done a better job with defining Federal and State Rights then the horrid Civil War may not have eventuated, though the greed and wickedness of the many Southern slave owners may have still forced the hand of the Federal Government in time and as the Constitution did not abolish slavery this allowed the greed and wickedness of the slave owners to develop to the point where many Americans had to unnecessarily die.

What did intrigue me was that due to the poorly defined US Constitution (when it comes to Federal and State rights), that if the Union had of woe the war in the first year or two that this would have allowed slavery to continue on maybe until the beginnings of the 20th century. Even though I am taking a different tack on this question, if the early US Constitution had of been clearer on a number of issues then not simply left some serious questions to the States to decide, then the incredible loss of life that occurred during the period of slavery and with the Civil War may not have occurred.

 

[FreedByte]

I guess that it would be safe to say that we hold to vastly different ideas with how our governments are to establish Laws and protections for its citizens.

Certainly.

When we go back to the Old Testament we see that the Father had established some incredibly intricate Laws for the Israelites to follow and if God saw that his people could not properly exist without some very specific religious, moral, fiscal, agricultural, social and government Laws then why should we see ourselves as being any different to them?

This is true, but the Israelites and their government were ruled directly by God. The theocracy worked because everyone in the society believed in the same God. Our modern governments are completely incompetent and unable to enforce many laws. Just look at alcohol prohibition. Yes, it would be great if no one got drunk, but alcohol prohibition caused an increase in alcohol use and an increase in gang violence (e.g. Al Capone). The same thing has happened with drugs. Gang violence is rampant. Not only that, but there are countries like Portugal, that has legalized ALL drugs and has seen a 20% decrease in usage and now has the lowest drug use rate in Europe.

As an Australian I will understandably see things a bit differently to that of my US counterparts as our countries have developed along different lines. There is of course a great risk with over simplifying matters and as the population of the US greatly outnumbers that of our own then this in itself can create issues that we don’t encounter here in Australia.

Unlike that of the US we have not had to go through a war to gain our independence from Britain nor suffered incredible losses and pain with a civil war which itself grew partly out of the financial greed of numerous slave owners. When my wife and I were in the US late last year, we spent some time in Gettysburg, Baltimore (Fort McHenry) and in the Smithsonian in Washington which allowed us to gain a few insights into the history of your country; it seems that Gettysburg and Baltimore are not places that many Australians seem to go to – much to their detriment! What did become apparent was that as the US Constitution failed to properly define Federal and State Rights that this allowed the situation to develop where the Southern States felt aggrieved with the aggression by Washington.

Now I have no time for the evils of slavery but it seems that the Southern States may have had a strong legal case that the Federal government was intervening in affairs that it had no legal right to enforce outside of their own jurisdiction. If the writers of the early US Constitution had of done a better job with defining Federal and State Rights then the horrid Civil War may not have eventuated, though the greed and wickedness of the many Southern slave owners may have still forced the hand of the Federal Government in time and as the Constitution did not abolish slavery this allowed the greed and wickedness of the slave owners to develop to the point where many Americans had to unnecessarily die.

What did intrigue me was that due to the poorly defined US Constitution (when it comes to Federal and State rights), that if the Union had of woe the war in the first year or two that this would have allowed slavery to continue on maybe until the beginnings of the 20th century. Even though I am taking a different tack on this question, if the early US Constitution had of been clearer on a number of issues then not simply left some serious questions to the States to decide, then the incredible loss of life that occurred during the period of slavery and with the Civil War may not have occurred.

I'm not sure what this point is exactly in response to, but the Southern States were violating the rights of the slaves, so the federal government had the right to enforce the constitution and intervene. The tenth amendment does not allow states to violate the rights of those within.

Also I'm not sure what being an American has to do with it exactly. The Liberal Democratic Party in Australia shares similar views (minus differences on gay marriage). It is a minority party there just like the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party are minorities here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

 

[lismore]

What state, country, island, whatever place that you feel is somewhere you would like to retire to and live happily ever after.

Israel.

 

[tobethebest]

Isn't there a tremendous amount of problems facing Israel these days? I read that the nuclear situation is getting well out of hand with Iran and that Israel threatens to do something about it.

The Middle East itself is fairly uncomfortable, wouldn't you agree?

 

[lismore]

Isn't there a tremendous amount of problems facing Israel these days? I read that the nuclear situation is getting well out of hand with Iran and that Israel threatens to do something about it.

The Middle East itself is fairly uncomfortable, wouldn't you agree?

Israel is probably the safest country in the world to be in. The only nation that has a national covenant with Almighty God, the only nation God has said will never be destroyed.

Amos 9:15
I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,’ says the Lord your God.

 

[FreedByte]

Israel is probably the safest country in the world to be in. The only nation that has a national covenant with Almighty God, the only nation God has said will never be destroyed.

Amos 9:15
I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,’ says the Lord your God.

God has a covenant with believers in Jesus Christ, not with the state of Israel. To say otherwise is to reject the New Testament altogether. Believers in Christ are spiritual Israel. God does not have a covenant with nonbelievers.

 

[Faulty]

God has a covenant with believers in Jesus Christ, not with the state of Israel. To say otherwise is to reject the New Testament altogether. Believers in Christ are spiritual Israel. God does not have a covenant with nonbelievers.

He still has to sit on the throne of David and to reign over the house of Jacob.

 

[lismore]

God has a covenant with believers in Jesus Christ, not with the state of Israel. To say otherwise is to reject the New Testament altogether. Believers in Christ are spiritual Israel. God does not have a covenant with nonbelievers.

I would direct your attention to Jeremiah 31st chapter. You have been misinformed.