Re: ANZ bank raises rates again! Time for Swann to sing another song.

[Ext User(Green Lantern)]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67ciesF2nbn3cU1@mid.individual.net...
> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:40:31 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Julia would sure as hell do it.
>>>
>>>>> Pity the federal govt doesnt even have the legal power to control
>>>>> what interest rates the banks charge so even that bulldyke would
>>>>> be shit out of luck.
>>>
>>>> Commonwealth Constitution, section 51.
>>>
>>>> The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
>>>> make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
>>>> Commonwealth with respect to: -
>>>
>>>> (xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking
>>>> extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
>>>> incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money.
>>>
>>> Pity about what the High Court found on that when Labor attempted to
>>> nationalise the banks.
>>
>> Chifley tried to go a lot further than just regulating the interest
>> rates charged by banks.
>>
>> If you're referring to the Bank Nationalisation Case, the High
>> Court there held that Chifley's legislation violated the "just terms"
>> clause of s. 51. Ultimately, the case wasn't decided by the High
>> Court under s. 51(xiii) (though a breach of s. 51(xiii) was certainly
>> argued by the plaintiff banks, and was mentioned by some of the
>> judges in their opinions -- which runs to around 400 pages in the
>> Commonwealth Law Reports). The Privy Council spent relatively more
>> time on s. 51(xiii) after Evatt appealed from the High Court to London.
>
> Nothing like as black and white as you implied tho.

Such impressive details.

[Ext User(Polly the Parrot)]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:15:53 GMT "Green Lantern" <green@peril.com>
wrote:

> > Nothing like as black and white as you implied tho.
>
> Such impressive details.


Yes, Our Roddles Troll is wriggling on this one, as he does on many
others.

[Ext User(Green Lantern)]

"Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:20080425103918.461e0e65@linux-k6os.site...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:15:53 GMT "Green Lantern" <green@peril.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Nothing like as black and white as you implied tho.
>>
>> Such impressive details.
>
>
> Yes, Our Roddles Troll is wriggling on this one, as he does on many
> others.

Yes. He does appear to be clueless.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Green Lantern <green@peril.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Julia would sure as hell do it.

>>>>>> Pity the federal govt doesnt even have the legal power to control
>>>>>> what interest rates the banks charge so even that bulldyke would
>>>>>> be shit out of luck.

>>>>> Commonwealth Constitution, section 51.

>>>>> The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
>>>>> make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
>>>>> Commonwealth with respect to: -

>>>>> (xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking
>>>>> extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
>>>>> incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money.

>>>> Pity about what the High Court found on that when Labor attempted to nationalise the banks.

>>> Chifley tried to go a lot further than just regulating the interest
>>> rates charged by banks.

>>> If you're referring to the Bank Nationalisation Case, the High
>>> Court there held that Chifley's legislation violated the "just
>>> terms" clause of s. 51. Ultimately, the case wasn't decided by the
>>> High Court under s. 51(xiii) (though a breach of s. 51(xiii) was certainly argued by the plaintiff banks, and was
>>> mentioned by some of the judges in their opinions -- which runs to around 400 pages in the
>>> Commonwealth Law Reports). The Privy Council spent relatively more
>>> time on s. 51(xiii) after Evatt appealed from the High Court to London.

>> Nothing like as black and white as you implied tho.

> Such impressive details.

Horry posted the detail, cretin.

[Ext User(Green Lantern)]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67crpeF2omf1aU1@mid.individual.net...
> Green Lantern <green@peril.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Julia would sure as hell do it.
>
>>>>>>> Pity the federal govt doesnt even have the legal power to control
>>>>>>> what interest rates the banks charge so even that bulldyke would
>>>>>>> be shit out of luck.
>
>>>>>> Commonwealth Constitution, section 51.
>
>>>>>> The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
>>>>>> make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
>>>>>> Commonwealth with respect to: -
>
>>>>>> (xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking
>>>>>> extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
>>>>>> incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money.
>
>>>>> Pity about what the High Court found on that when Labor attempted to
>>>>> nationalise the banks.
>
>>>> Chifley tried to go a lot further than just regulating the interest
>>>> rates charged by banks.
>
>>>> If you're referring to the Bank Nationalisation Case, the High
>>>> Court there held that Chifley's legislation violated the "just
>>>> terms" clause of s. 51. Ultimately, the case wasn't decided by the
>>>> High Court under s. 51(xiii) (though a breach of s. 51(xiii) was
>>>> certainly argued by the plaintiff banks, and was mentioned by some of
>>>> the judges in their opinions -- which runs to around 400 pages in the
>>>> Commonwealth Law Reports). The Privy Council spent relatively more
>>>> time on s. 51(xiii) after Evatt appealed from the High Court to London.
>
>>> Nothing like as black and white as you implied tho.
>
>> Such impressive details.
>
> Horry posted the detail, cretin.

Your unsubstantiated and amateurish comment came after Horry provided
details. At no stage have you provided any details. You must be
logic-challenged.