It’s Clive’s party and his Puppies don’t have voting rightsGARY JOHNSTHE AUSTRALIANAUGUST 26, 2014 12:00 

I THINK my colleague Hedley Thomas is on to something. The Palmer United Party is not a party. Members of the Palmer United Party are, in effect supporters, not members.

Rule D13 of the PUP constitution determines that the six Foundation members are Clive and family. Rule D26 determines that a majority of foundation members can throw out any ordinary member.

Rule W1 determines that the six foundation members exercise all of the powers of the executive until December 31, 2016.

Finally, rule W3 determines that the chairman (and federal president) is fully authorised to exercise all the powers of the interim executive committee.

Nice work, Clive.

I had hopes for Palmer - actually thought he would do something for the Seniors.

I never had hope for Palmer as his idols were Joe Bejelkie-Peterson and also Lan Hancock etc --and IMO birds of a feather flock together--and both of those were crooks of the highest order, Palmer just wants to get to have his say so HE can get what HE wants.

There are NONE that I would vote for at this time

Abby, Palmer is all about Palmer...he says what pensioners "wanted" to hear.

The man said he would get a better deal re the GST for Western Australia...nothing happened and nothing has been said since the election.

A friend said to me she voted for him because ...her words exactly...."he is one of us".

Palmer, "one of us", I very much doubt it.   He is a billionaire, lives the high life and if he cannot buy what he wants he sues.

Would love to know how many court cases he has pending.

  Is Clive Palmer Barry Humphries' best character so far? 

Yes, he would be a good subject for a comedy skit  LOL.

He reminds me a bit of Russ Hinze physically.  Some may remember him.  Size wise Clive wins.

...least this woman has the "guts" to say what a lot of people "may" be thinking - she's like a "has been" Pauline Hanson - BUT - "bogan or whatever" least tells it how she see's it - nothing wrong with being honest!!!!  May not be evereyone's view on things but give her credit where it's due ........... :-)

It seems Lambie does not bother to check out things properly. Maybe still learning the ropes or as Abby suggested hungry for media attention. To use a female cops image as a prop against the very tpes that murdered the cop and say she is that type is very low indeed.

The photographer of an image shared on social media by Senator Jacqui Lambie as part of an online campaign to "ban the burqa" has accused the Tasmanian Senator of desecrating the memory of an Afghan police woman who was murdered by the Taliban.

Lana Slezic told the ABC she is "deeply insulted" by the misappropriation of her image of Malalai Kakar, Kandahar's first female police officer and mother of six, in service of an anti-burqa agenda and says the photo has been "desecrated on Jacqui Lambie's Facebook page".

Malalai Kakar, depicted in the photograph wearing a burqa and brandishing a gun, was a lieutenant-colonel and head of the city's department for crimes against women when she was fatally shot outside her home by Taliban extremists in 2008. 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-jacqui-lambies-antiburqa-post-desecrated-image-photographer-says-20140920-10jnc3.html#ixzz3DpLJsX2v

I thought Jacqui Lambie added a bit of colour to a boring parliament originally but on seeing her post the photo below I have changed my opinion and consider her a dangerous fool.

This is what geomac referred to in his post above.

Britain First is a far-right British nationalist political party.

She may find herself on the "hit list" if she is not careful!

So grow up she made a mistake - took it off the British Facebook page and used it.

Meant only as an illustration of how easy it would be and has been used to infiltrate any place with a concealed weapon and even be a man and has been.

So what - we cant say anything we like about them and their in your face ways like wearing the burqa in the first place in our country? When they demand we women cover up in their countries? No well you havent been either a woman or travelled as one in a Muslim country have you Gerry or Geomac.

Then we demand people remove helmets in banks and petrol stations?

And how safe are these women driving in these burqa's?

Cant see all round for sure. And not allowed to drive cars in their own countries.

Anyway so having a lend of us, using our systems when suits them, and theirs which were supposed to be left behind here to be in our faces. They make no moves to assimilate rather they are saying wont ever and cant anyway as not allowed have to live a Muslim under Sharia but then of course take our citizenship to get family re-unions when not allowed to put any law above Sharia but surely swear to obey and put ours above all others too?

And so why can they then be granted  Sharia here ?

I thought when one took citizenship one had to swear to obey Australia's Laws and that means not putting those of another country or ideology above ours surely?

Care to comment ?

In my opinion what Lambie did was abhorrent. The way it was done was sickening...if Palmer has any sense he would sack her before she does any more harm. It's people like her and the scare mongerers who put our security in real danger.

Having said all that, I do not care for what reason Muslim women wear the burqa and niqab..it's their custom and none of my business. The safety of this country however is our business. So therefore it has always been at the back of my mind that the burqa and the niqab should be banned for visibility reasons and not cultural. It's very unnerving to see someone approach with only two eyes visible, and yes, I do feel a bit threatened even though I may have absolutely no reason to be. I have no problems with the hijab and think they look rather nice. 

The question is...is this the right time to open such a can of worms and insist for the banning of the burqa? Should this not have been considered a long time ago? Do we want to fuel the fire of fanatics who will see it as a step towards oppressing them?  Do we want to risk further demonising a complete community because of a small percentage of extremists?