18/02/2020 at 11:12 am #87319
Subtitled; The Arabian Nights Story.
Jacqui Lambie appeared on Q&A on monday 17th february 2020:
Jacqui was questioned about why she voted with the government to repeal the ‘medevac’ laws.
She said her decision was pertinent to matters of national security.
She said she could not talk about her reasons because of the ‘national security’ implications, and please just to trust her.
All would become clear over time.
Jacqui is one tough little cookie, and I admire her for that.
But does she have the necessary levels of imagination, vision, and wisdom?
No, I think not.
It appears Jacqui might have been ‘sold a pup’?
She has been misled by clever manipulators?
She has forgotten why she is a member of parliament?
She is there to represent the interests of her electorate!
To be the eyes and ears and voice of her electorate in the parliament.
To listen to her electorate, make decisions based on what she hears, and keep her electorate well informed on all things happening in the parliament.
She has now joined with ‘those others’ to be part of a ‘secret society’, and hide things from the people and from her electorate?
Jacqui, you don’t have the right to do that, whatever you have been told.
You were elected by a group of people.
Your first loyalty is to them!
As well, the whole situation struck me as being entirely unreal.
It is like something out of ‘the arabian nights’.
Which fact makes me think that Jacqui might not believe it all either?
I hope this is true.
It might pass muster in the gloom of night, but in the light of day it is exposed for what it is?
A carefully crafted deception by someone?
And you fell for it?
I wrote the above before checking online for any reaction from others.
When I did, I found similar ‘impressions’, although my words express them differently.
Maybe my imagination is far more active than theirs is?
Maybe I am less impressed by ‘the arabian nights’? ^_^18/02/2020 at 1:27 pm #87321
Ah! Miss Lambie!
The greatest intellect of our time!18/02/2020 at 3:10 pm #87323
A few further thoughts. I have many.
I really must stop taking those ‘dynamite’ pills.
Someone wants me to believe that bringing a person to australia for urgent medical treatment always involves matters of national security?
In that case I have something I would like to tell you.
It might surprise you.
This is it.
I went to school!
It is true that education back then was well below par.
Writing with charcoal, adding up with fingers and sticks, and sometimes toes, was not conducive to good learning.
But we did learn a modicum about how to reason.
So, many of my peers will be asking a similar question?
Why help repeal the medevac law?
My impression at the time was that the new law had the general approval of the people.
They thought it better to trust doctors, rather than bureaucrats, to make decisions related to medical imperatives.
On the (very) rare occasion that national security could be an issue, I am quite certain there are already adequate laws to cover such an eventuality.
Surely these would not be contingent on the repeal of the medevac law?
So there was no need to repeal that law.
Such is my opinion, based on all I have read.
Now, is someone going to pull my other leg?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.