• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About XCOM!

  • Rank
    Who is Betty Ford anyway?

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Even if they do impeach him (essentially being charged with one of the specified offences) they would still have to run a case and get a conviction before he can be removed from office. Given that they've never done it, the chances of that happening within the current term would be bugger-all, but an impeachment would impact on his re-election prospects.
  2. The comments made related to an active appeal for an increased sentence. The original judge had taken age and potential for rehabilitation into account to reduce the sentence, and this was appealed. The appeal decision was pending at the time of the comments. In the end, I believe that they increased 3 and reduced 1. Politicians, Media, Public, can & do comment-criticize the judiciary all the time. Morons such as Jones and Hadley do it every day, and are still able to walk the streets - although I often wonder how. What is NOT allowed, is trying to coerce the court during an active case, into making a desired judgement or sentence, in the same way that you can't try to influence a juror. For politicians to try and do that brings into question the whole separation of powers thing. The Australian, which basically started the episode, recognised their error and position, and was quick to issue a full apology However, these 3 monkeys refused to retract their comments and apologise to the court when they were brought to task on it, thinking that they could bully the court into backing down. Then, when push came to shove, they retracted the comments (via the SG) but still refused to apologise to the court. Only when they were about to be referred to the feds did they finally get the SG to apologise on their behalf. All 3 of them are lawyers and would have known full well that this constituted contempt, but thought they could get away with it.
  3. Unless he is impeached AND convicted of a crime specified in the US Constitution, then he is the executive and pretty much untouchable I would have thought. BTW: No president has ever been removed from office, so I wouldn't be holding my breath for it to happen with Trump.
  4. This wasn't questioning a judgement. The judgement had not been made, and so this was attempting to influence a decision of the court. This is often referred to as scandalizing - if you don't make the decision we want we'll ensure you are subjected to public wrath and condemnation.
  5. For nerds (like me) who like this sort of stuff One of the interesting numbers was the installed cost for utility PV Arrays from www.nrel.gov Comment are illuminating - the number of people who didn't actually listen to the video and posted anyway.
  6. Like... what she says 'bout talkin' strayan and stuff... http://www.smh.com.au/comment/parliamentarians-fail-basic-english-proficiency-test-20170623-gwxfpd.html I do love this excerpt: "There were sniggers at the time, but with the benefit of six months and some historical perspective it's obvious what the anus of proof is. It's where you put the suppository of all wisdom. Tell me I'm wrong."
  7. "We have realised we should have offered an unconditional apology to the court. "We offer that apology now and unreservedly withdraw all comments. "It's clear just how inaccurate our understanding was." In other words - "we are 3 dickheads who should learn to STFU"
  8. So, can anyone explain why these 3 turds - Hunt, Sukkar, Tudge - are playing chicken with the court, and why the LNP is letting them do it ? Seriously, how can 3 lawyers not know that they what they did risks a charge of criminal contempt and the loss of their seats ? Even the Australian knew enough to apologise to the court, but apparently these idiots think they are above or immune.
  9. If that's your problem, invest in a good set of wireless headphones that target hearing loss. Something like the https://en-au.sennheiser.com/rs-195 are a bit exy, but very good.
  10. I don't have (can't afford) a dedicated TV-Stereo setup, and just use my pc for everything - MediaPortal for live TV. I have a Dell soundbar on the monitor and my USB Skype HeadSet if I want to get all fancy-schmancy. To be honest, I have toyed with the idea of buying a USB DAC rather than the utter crap built-in soundcard of the PC, but at the end of the day, I don't listen to music enough to justify it and basically just can't be arsed.
  11. Turnbull showed his cards back when, as Kerry Packer's legal adviser, he shopped him to an investigation into media ownership because he didn't get what he wanted from Packer, despite the information being privileged and confidential.
  12. Building codes & material standards are supposed to contain and prevent the vertical spread of fire in high-rise constructions, because this phenomena is such a well-known risk. However, the use of cheap sub-standard materials and the brazen flouting of construction codes by developers, has seen an increase in these incidents around the world. It's been happening too often in China. I know that the high-rise where I live, the body-corporate had to take the developer to court in order to get glaring deficiencies in the inter-floor fire-damping corrected, despite the fact that the original implementation was obviously illegal even to a cursory inspection. Knowing what I do now, there are a lot of new high-rises in Sydney and Melbourne that I'd be leery about.
  13. Do the stats separate Houses and Units ?
  14. You gotta laugh... Margaret Court has invoked the Hitler argument, thus terminating the entire debate. "That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did," Mrs Court said, "get in the minds of the children. There's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get in the minds of the children." Yep, those god-damned queers and lesbos are leading our kiddies astray, just like Hitler and Stalin.
  15. Very sad - one of the nicest guys. Unfortunately, there is apparently a surveillance video showing him riding through an intersection he was expected to stop at, straight into the path of the car - although it's yet to be determined if the car was speeding. Police are apparently investigating the possibility that he may have been distracted by the iPod he was wearing, and simply made a mistake.