Slashdot Mirror


Rich and American? Australia Wants You

An anonymous reader writes: Following the success of a millionaire visa program to attract wealthy Chinese, Australia has launched an invite-only visa program that promises citizenship to rich American entrepreneurs. To meet the requirements of the Premium Investment Visa plan Americans must first invest around 15 million Australian dollars. Reuters reports: "Investment advisors who have been briefed on the plan by government officials expressed doubts about the wisdom of targeting Americans, with several telling Reuters the more obvious place to start was Australia's Asian neighbors. After all, why would a successful U.S. entrepreneur want to invest a large chunk of cash in Australia — a country very similar to the United States, just further away from everything — in exchange for a passport that carries few additional benefits to their own? 'The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,' said Bill Fuggle, a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie who advises wealthy Chinese migrating to Australia."

337 comments

  1. Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!

    1. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot Chicago, where Democrats have been in charge for so long, elections are "non-partisan" because it's a one-party system, baby!

    2. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has a surplus of rich selfish people. Australia can have them. Finally something we can export. Although, I would feel bad about the morality of inflicting the poor unsuspecting Ozzies with the likes of the Romneys et al.

    3. Re: Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say they go. We're better off without those who corrupt or legal system.

    4. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the rich selfish people in the US are Democrats

    5. Re:Detroitland by j-beda · · Score: 2

      That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!

      Not a problem. The US and Eritrea are pretty much the only countries in the world that taxes non-resident citizens. Usually I would question any policy only followed by a single other country, but in this situation I can see why a country might like to have such a policy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Giving up your US Citizenship might help your unborn children's tax situation, but might not help yours:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are subject under certain circumstances to an expatriation tax, which is meant to extract from the expatriate taxes that would have been paid had they remained a citizen: all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date, which usually results in a capital gain, which is taxable income."

    6. Re:Detroitland by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      That article is about campaign contributions

    7. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Miami...

      Funny how you fools only ever name the cities with underlying racial problems going back generations and blame their problems on Democrats, while ignoring all the other traditional Democratic run cities that are run away successes.

    8. Re:Detroitland by DiehardIndependent · · Score: 1

      That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!

      But what about the Aussies? Can their immigration infrastructure handle hundreds (if not thousands) of immigrants who list their names as "John Galt"?

    9. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      So an illegal non-citizen's property is respected by the US government but anyone that dares insult the US by leaving is punished.

    10. Re:Detroitland by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Why would an entrepreneur go to Australia and pay even higher taxes there than in the U.S. when they could immigrate to some country that has little or no taxes and let's them rule like a Andreew Ryan-esque god?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    11. Re:Detroitland by starless · · Score: 1

      Why would an entrepreneur go to Australia and pay even higher taxes there than in the U.S. when they could immigrate to some country.../p>

      If they are "going" then they are "emigrating" not "immigrating".

      Overall, just using "migrate" is probably better as it's independent of the point of view.
      e.g.
      http://www.vocabulary.com/arti...

    12. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many areas of the country are like that. Running as anything but a Republican in many red states is just as laughable as running as anything but a Democrat in Chicago. That, of course, assumes that there's even enough distinction between the parties to claim that we have a two-party system with a straight face.

    13. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is, if it wasn't for "them blacks", Democrat-run cities wouldn't look so bad.

      We get your message, racist.

      After you've had the shit beat out of you during a mugging by people from a minority ethnic group,
      you will understand just how wrong you are now about your naive worldview.

    14. Re:Detroitland by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This synopsis says :

      'The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes,

      Seriously? C'mon, there aren't that many racial crimes in the US (I'm guessing a racial crime means white on black crime?).

      We've just had a few cases that have been blown up by the 24/7 news media. It isn't like we're over here beating each other up when we see someone different walking across the street. Geez.

      I'd dare say most people in the US couldn't give a fuck about what their fellow citizens are doing. Most of us are way too busy trying to support OUR own families and get ahead in life and enjoy life a bit.

      Most of us here don't have the time to go out of our way to suppress or commit crimes against another race different than ourselves.

      It isn't even on most of our citizens' daily life radar.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Detroitland by rbrander · · Score: 2

      You have to love the " even higher taxes " as if the USA were a high-tax regime already and Australia barely manages to top it. For the "Rich people" at issue, the USA has some of the lowest taxes anywhere. Jamaica has lower top-tier taxes than the USA does (or anybody): only 15%. Why not move there? English spoken, close to the USA, sunny beaches.

      No, seriously, libertarian types: why not Jamaica? There is no "Galt's Gulch" in the real world (we're sorry) but you could move to Jamaica. I can't figure out why they don't.

    16. Re:Detroitland by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Not as easy as all that.

      For instance, Portland (OR) is successful not because of its governance, but because it's surrounded by huge corporations in adjacent cities/counties which are decidedly not Democrat-controlled (e.g. the Intel Corporation has numerous fabs in nearby Hillsboro, Nike is headquartered in Beaverton, etc). Few folks actually live inside Portland's city limits unless they're either very wealthy or very homeless - I think the exceptions are all found east of the river, and most of those neighborhoods are being gentrified all to hell as I type this. Instead, most folks live in the surrounding cities... which again are not Democrat-controlled. To top all that off, PDX hasn't been controlled by the Democrats for as long as most cities.

      Seattle isn't too much different, truth be told... Like Portland, they began their swing leftward in the 1980's-1990s. I'm willing to wager that Miami started shifting at around the same time.

      NYC? It swings back and forth, going as far left as Dinkins, until everyone gets sick of the squalor and elects someone like Guiliani to clean it all up. Then they slowly go back towards the DNC again.

      San Fran is a bit of an exception, but is supported by a massive existing set of industries that cannot easily move.

      Kind of surprised you didn't mention LA...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    17. Re:Detroitland by Faust6 · · Score: 1

      Rather he's saying "if it weren't for racism and micro-cultures of poverty"

    18. Re:Detroitland by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Like Portland, they began their swing leftward in the 1980's-1990s.

      It's not really that Portland swung left but that everyone else swung right.

    19. Re:Detroitland by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      That claim is particularly weird because the pitch is targeted at wealthy Americans.

      Yeah, sure, there are plenty of places where you have uncomfortably good odds of 'racial crimes', or garden variety getting mugged and/or shot; but wealthy people generally don't live in them. That's one of the perks of having enough money to live in the nice part of town. The people you want just don't really have to worry(they might anyway, like the nuts ranting about how talk of 'inequality' is just a step away from sending anyone not on welfare to the death camps). Unless there is a supply of people who just really want to live a long way from anywhere(flights to Australia aren't exotic or anything; but they are very, very, tedious); they'd better have a more relevant set of issues.

    20. Re:Detroitland by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the really wealthy generally spend less time whining about taxes and more time creatively structuring their assets so as to not pay them; and can also afford, if they want, to live under just about any tax structure worldwide, so their choice of residence and citizenship is based more on preference and perceived advantages than on economic necessity. They may still dislike paying whatever taxes they can't avoid; but not enough to put themselves to any great personal inconvenience or hardship about it.

      The less wealthy, but wealthy enough to feel exploited by the tax system, whine more loudly because they have fewer options for lowering their effective tax rate(high-salary skilled workers, say, tend to resent getting taxed at income tax rates rather than capital gains rates); and because they are relatively poor enough that the marginal value of the assets they lose to taxation is higher(if you are really rich, taxes may offend you in some abstract sense; but they don't really change your ability to enjoy basically anything money can buy; if you are merely wealthy, taxes aren't putting you in the bread line; but they quite possibly are reducing the range of things you can afford.)

      The somewhat less wealthy are also presumably less able to insulate themselves from their environment. A suitably large fortune will keep just about anything except the central government at bay(this is why so many Russian oligarchs hang out in London); but the smaller the fortune the lower the degree of cost-effective insulation you can manage. This makes Jamaica's relative poverty, very high crime, poor corruption ranking, and mediocre HDI somewhat less attractive.

    21. Re:Detroitland by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      You also forgot: Seattle, NYC(ish), San Francisco, etc etc etc. Heck even Kansas City has been democrat controlled for awhile.

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    22. Re:Detroitland by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Yes, illegal might become a citizen, nay a patriot. While you are abandoning your flag when you become an exPATRIATE. Why does this surprise you?

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    23. Re:Detroitland by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I disagree (disclosure: I live here).

      Before the 1980's, Portland was staunchly conservative; there was a church on practically every corner ( the vast majority of which were Catholic), and it was considered a working-class town with those particular values (albeit the strip clubs and etc were thriving from Burnside northwards, etc).

      All one has to do is to check the political parties of successive mayors, really.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    24. Re:Detroitland by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      It's not a problem with black. It's a problem with gangster society, which transcends race - Whites, Hispanics, Orientals, Blacks, you name it, all have been pulled in.

      Racism is idiocy. Recognizing that a subculture is toxic is just common sense.

      Most people are too busy trying to appear politically correct to make any sense at all when these issues come up. A good number of the rest are far too deeply mired in their own prejudices to understand what is actually wrong. Between the two, it becomes very difficult indeed to have any hope for remediation.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    25. Re:Detroitland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon, there aren't that many racial crimes in the US (I'm guessing a racial crime means white on black crime?).

      Why would it refer only to white-on-black crime, when black-on-white crime is more common? (Quickly checking the homicide stats: black-on-white is about twice as common as white-on-black.)

      Perhaps it would be more useful to state that the overall crime rate is lower in Australia than in the US. Checking the stats: raw murder rates are 4.7 for the US and 1.1 for Australia, annually per 100,000 population.

    26. Re:Detroitland by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Unless there is a supply of people who just really want to live a long way from anywhere(flights to Australia aren't exotic or anything; but they are very, very, tedious);

      Plane ride? Flight? Oh, no. No. Those cattle cars are for you, little taxpayer.

      Travel to and from Australia is just more time on the yacht with one's skimpily clad companions.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    27. Re: Detroitland by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I say they go. We're better off without those who corrupt or legal system.

      So you want our politicians and judges and lawyers all to go to Australia? Can't say I see much downside to that. Well, for the US, anyway. Would owe some pretty deep sympathy to Australia, though.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    28. Re:Detroitland by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Yep. The high income taxes levied by a nanny state government only serves to prevent people from becoming rich. Less incoming competition for old money. That is why socialism is so popular in Europe...the smart, old money there knows how to keep their power.

    29. Re:Detroitland by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Going by the commercial offerings(you can probably do it faster if your yacht is built like a clipper ship and runs like hell all the way); that's somewhere between 20 days and 3 months. Those scantily clad companions had better be of a 'highly stimulating nature'; because that's a long time, even compared to flying coach.

    30. Re:Detroitland by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's great! As soon as alllllll the richie richers leave, the entiiiiiire USA can be like Detroit! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!

      But what about the Aussies? Can their immigration infrastructure handle hundreds (if not thousands) of immigrants who list their names as "John Galt"?

      The same way the US will handle issuing hundreds (if not thousands) of passport application listing their names as "John Galt".

      And the dismantlement they'll get when they arrive here and find we have things like laws and expect people to conduct themselves within their bounds.

      This is an invite system, which means if you become applicable the government already knows a lot about you.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    31. Re:Detroitland by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No, seriously, libertarian types: why not Jamaica? There is no "Galt's Gulch" in the real world (we're sorry) but you could move to Jamaica. I can't figure out why they don't.

      Apparently there really is a Galt's Gulch in the real world and its turning out exactly as we expected.

      Seems its a giant scam for people who are silly enough to believe in libertarianism. Ironically, it's very free market of the scammers.

      Now I've actually lived in places where you can almost literally get away with murder if you've got enough money. There are things that are accepted there that Libertarians will never be able to live with. I'm yet to find one that doesn't treat foreigners as second class citizens. In Thailand or the Philippines where I lived if you crossed the wrong local, you'd best get out of dodge before the day is out. Any argument between you and a local will result in the local winning. You get used to a two tier pricing system because "Farang (Thai: White/Western Foreigner) have more money". Sure I could ride a motorbike without a helmet if I wanted to, but the made up fines by the cops were a complete pain in the arse when they saw I wasn't Thai.

      Libertarians wonder why I laugh uncontrollably when they talk about oppression and how it would be so much better if we didn't have these "nanny state" rules. I've lived in the opposite of a nanny state and their heads are in the clouds.

      Point in short, in a land without rules, those with power make up their own. A libertarian paradise has the same probability of occurring as a real life Hogwarts.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Full disclaimer: I'm Australian.
    Spoiler: It's a trap!
    More?: We're like America (well, our government tries to be, at every opportunity), only without your wonderful constitutional freedoms!

    1. Re:Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Constitutional freedoms are for poor people. Rich people have money to pay for the freedoms you wish you had.

    2. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by therufus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't bother. We're full. We have a housing crisis and the cost of living in a major city is criminal.

      I pay $450/wk rent for a two bedroom unit 40 mins from Sydney. Young people growing up here have no chance of owning a house because we have an influx of Asians who have moved over and bought all our property, paid for by their rich parents.

      He's right. It's a trap!

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    3. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same in most parts of America also. Except no kangaroos... Kangaroos are cool!

    4. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay double that and live 10 minutes from the CBD by ferry. While I agree prices aren't cheap, I believe is naive (and a bit racist as Australians tend to be) that Asian immigrants are pushing up prices. Rather than looking for an easy scape goat like the conservative papers would have you do, you should be putting the blame on low rates, unprecedented wage rises and constrained supply. But don't fret, the correction is coming as the mining boom dies out.

       

    5. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hate to be the bearer of bad news. Kangaroos breed like rabbits. If you come to Australia and visit the cities you'll probably see some in a zoo. If you come to Australia and visit any rural area (most suffering severe water shortages) you'll find them on the back of a pickup truck, culled and on their way to a butcher where they'll be sold for next to nothing for pet food.

      Up here if you own a rural properly and hold a current gun license you're basically guaranteed an order to cull 1000 animals. Once you've hit your quota, providing you still own a rural property and still hold a current gun license, you're guaranteed a licence to cull a further 1000 animals. And so on, and so on. Pretty much the only way you'll ever be denied is if you've been caught killing them for skins only, being a cruel cunt leaving animals to suffer (e.g.: not dispatching the young), or doing sick shit like mounting kangaroos to fence posts and so forth (sadly, there are a few people this fucked up over here).

      I've heard the system is a little better down in NSW, though only a little better, and only because of commercial sale licenses (for export and the like).

    6. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by DiehardIndependent · · Score: 1

      I pay $450/wk rent for a two bedroom unit 40 mins from Sydney.

      Is that US$? If it is, consider yourself lucky.

    7. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.google.com/search?q=450.00+AUD+to+USD

      450.00 Australian Dollar equals 335.66 US Dollar

      So about USD $1340 per month.

    8. Re:Sounds like a good deal! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      There is a persistent romantic sentiment in the US that Australia represents a sort of America that could have been. This announcement is designed to appeal to those who haven't been staying aware of the Euro-style surveillance that now pervades Australia, and the monopolies that keep the cost of such things as travel and broadband a lot higher than they should be, and the steady loss of rights in recent years.

    9. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard there is not much "city planning" as we here in Europe call it in the Australian cities, that is, those cities expand horizontally without zoning of local centers. Those centers would bound more capital into the building industry, and perhaps would prevent the forming of "infinite suburbia" in Australia.

    10. Re:Sounds like a good deal! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Full disclaimer: I'm Australian. Spoiler: It's a trap! More?: We're like America (well, our government tries to be, at every opportunity), only without your wonderful constitutional freedoms!

      Have you been under a rock? Free Speech zones? 135k fines for refusing bake a cake and a gag order to not speak about it and how the ruling violates, separation of church and state, the "congress shall pass no law preventing free exercise of religion" and freedom of speech?

      The bakery in question had sold numerous cakes to gay people including that "couple" in the past but refused to create a specific cake as a matter of conscience.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    11. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      So consider yourself lucky.... for a 2bedroom in the suburbs of seattle (redmond area) I pay $2500/mo. In SF area I paid $3200, heck in Kansas City suburbs (olathe area) I paid $1400/mo.

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    12. Re:Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like California with the nanny state control set to 11.

    13. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by ksheff · · Score: 1

      But at least you can buy roo meat in supermarkets for decent prices.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    14. Re: Sounds like a good deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that, while we could have that, the rest of the infrastructure is so archaic and inadequate, that if dwelling density would go up, everything would need to be upgraded. I mean electricity infrastructure is inadequate, telecommunications is inadequate, sewerage and water is inadequate, and worst of all for Sydney, roads are completely inadequate, because there is such poor public transport (I guess you could say it's inadequate as well). So while higher density would improve certain aspects, they can't increase it, because just about everything is already running at capacity.

  3. Uncle Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Rupert Murdoch was feeling nostalgic and wanted to be an Australian citizen again? (He had to give it up for American citizenship)
    This government owes him big time for the massively favourable press coverage they get, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they implemented this whole program just for him.

  4. Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

    Which is owned by an ex-Aussie, and is convinced that Obama's such a disaster that the rich are clamoring to leave.

    And I won't be surprised if that gets them some takers. Particularly if the GOP can't get it together and start getting a consistent lead on Hillary.

    There'll probably be a few more who do it because they want a rich democracy's passport,and don't like the fact the US taxes on global income (ie: if you make $1 Million in China and you;re Swedish you pay no Swedish taxes on it, just Chines; if you're American you pay both).

    1. Re:Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is owned by an ex-Aussie, and is convinced that Obama's such a disaster that the rich are clamoring to leave.

      When in reality the ultra-rich have been making out like bandits under Obama while the middle class continues to suffer.

    2. Re:Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Australia do the same...

    3. Re:Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I won't be surprised if that gets them some takers. Particularly if the GOP can't get it together and start getting a consistent lead on Hillary.

      That seems backward. Rich GOP voters would tend not to like living in Australia. No guns. 47% top tax rate. Overall, it's a more liberal country. It would be like moving from New Mexico to California because New Mexico is too liberal.

      It would make more sense for rich liberals to move to Australia if the GOP does get it together and beat Hillary.

    4. Re:Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make more sense for rich liberals to move to Australia if the GOP does get it together and beat Hillary.

      Except they would not be welcomed by the far-right regime that is in power in Australia at the moment.

    5. Re:Abbot probably watches a lot of Fox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends upon the country, e.g. us/canada there are tax crossovers and bottomline is, if you've paid more in canada than us tax would be, which is highly likely as canada also has fuck you tax rates, then you'd be foreign tax credited and owe no us taxes. i've done this. most european countriesbalso have this reciprocal tax agreement for individuals.

  5. Yeah.. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great.. More "innovative" entrepreneurs like the ones fleeing china before the SHTF as a result of looting their home country. Model citizens.

    If genuine business opportunities were created this would be completely different - however the minimum investment is just something to be got around in the most creative way possible.

  6. IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great stuff, should increase the average IQ of both countries.

    1. Re: IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol! Why the hell is this not modded up?

    2. Re:IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those rich idiots who know how to run a business got nothing on welfare recipients and career bureaucrats...

    3. Re: IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is not original. First said by New Zealand. No more true now than then.

    4. Re: IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's clearly bs. There's an early episode of Neighbours where they say that very thing.

    5. Re: IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd move to NZ in a heartbeat. OMG it's beautiful - I was there in winter in Auckland and it had great weather. And the backcountry is amazing. Even the trains - while limited - are good.

    6. Re: IQ++ by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      By PM Sir Robert Muldoon in 1982 : New Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    7. Re:IQ++ by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Australia: We welcome your criminals!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re: IQ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an early episode of Neighbours where they say that very thing.

      Neighbours hadn't even started screening when Piggy Muldoon made that comment. Jeeze mate, were you born in the last 40 years or somethin'?

  7. Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.

    Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.

    Too many people died to institute and then preserve that... and far more will die in futures to come.

    Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights. They just ban things... for the children. I can't have that. The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.

    I know my views are incomprehensible to many. And that's fine. Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OK, here's what you do, big man.

      You don't even have the intestinal fortitude to log in to Slashdot and you're picking on someone for their level of courage? Here's what you do next, you go get some psychiatric help. Otherwise, save us all a lot of time and find the easiest method of suicide available in your pathetic country, and apply it. You're going to do it anyway, and it would save us all a lot of trouble if you'd do it sooner.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by quenda · · Score: 2

      ... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.

      Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.

      Well, you'd be quite at home in Russia then. Zimbabwe has a bill or rights too.

      What you really want is a thing called "rule of law". Australia has mostly the same rights as the US, unsurprising since both countries legal systems are based on British common law. We can all trace our rights back to the Magna Carta and beyond.

      I can get by without a bill of rights, but it was annoying having to quarter those soldiers in my house last year.

    3. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL your political system spends the vast bulk of it's time and energy in paying a shallow lip service to the rules, whilst simultaneously corrupting everything they can get their damn hands on.

      You can keep your bill of rights, because I can drive a bag of cash across state lines without some corrupt cop legally seizing it. I'm not stuck in segregated communities because I happened to be born with a certain ethnicity, corporations are most certainly not people and don't have rights comparable to my own, and I don't have to look over my shoulder all the time because every maniac isn't constantly shooting up the place.

    4. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote the comedian, "Jim Jefferies":

      I understand that to Americans, your constitution is very important.
      I respect it, but please understand that every country has one as well.
      It's no more special than any other constitution.
      We have one in Australia.
      I don't know what it says.
      I've never seen it.
      If there's a problem, we'll check it, but everything's going fine.

      He's right on the money. Most Australians think they have freedoms they don't have from watching too much entertainment from overseas :)

    5. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, these 12 year old COD players are the most irritating things around. Could you please keep to xbox live and the ps network and leave the adults in peace.

    6. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just it. On paper, America has more freedom than Australia.
      But inside their heads, Americans are used to wiretapping, arrests, shootings, being treated like terrorists at the airport, thieves at home etc. Very little is done about those things.
      Oh, we see a lot of public outcry and similar PR crap, but there are few or no people held accountable for any of these things.

    7. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse... pretending to be stupid doesn't make for a clever argument.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 2

      Do you really think that a "instant militia of millions"(untrained fat blokes with hunting rifles and the occasional AR-15 wielding loon) is even vaguely a threat to the US military. The Iraqi army in the first gulf war was far better equipped, trained and experienced and they lasted about 45mins.

    9. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So my mom saw this thread and told me to apologize or I would be grounded for two weeks. Sorry about before, I was just kidding.

    10. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Inferior? Seriously?
      USA has neither a right to life, nor a right to roam. These two are most important rights, everything else is secondary.
      And with your mindset (wishing to be a menace) other countries don't want to have you anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that the US military is mostly made up of their sons and brothers... yeah.

      What is more... we're everywhere. You can't defend a city from the people that live in it.

      The concept is sound, sir.

      And before you bad mouth it, consider that the Swiss literally give all the men in their society a machine gun and a bag full of bullets.

      The anti gun stuff is largely propaganda. You don't understand the issue.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.

      What makes the US different is that its Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of rights given to citizens. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you any rights you didn't already have under the Constitution, and it doesn't limit government powers any more than the Constitution. The fact that you think the Bill of Rights is important is a sad reflection on how much the US Constitution is being ignored.

      Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.

      Australia is doing well in the area of economic freedoms: http://www.heritage.org/index/ Economic freedoms are inseparable from other freedoms, and the fact that the US government has been increasingly violating them also curtails many other freedoms. That may be attractive to wealthier folks. Having said that, I wouldn't want to move to Australia. Beautiful as it is, I think in practice, I think its society and culture are still pretty limiting compared to the US.

    13. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Before you say all these things, let us make sure you got 15 million dollars to invest in Australia. Otherwise it could just be sour grapes.

      Also USA also has this visa program. It costs much less, just 5 million USD, need to create just 10 jobs or so. You can fire them as soon as your green card comes through.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    14. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your views aren't just incomprehensible, but they aren't based on reality either, being of the " 'Merica, because Freedom! " variety.
      this may be a shock, but the Us not only isn't the only place with freedom, but it's actually one of the less free countries in the developed world.
      You think Australia is inferior in that regard, but only due to your own ignorance.

    15. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you understand reality

    16. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.

      And how well has that been working for you Americans recently?

      You have declared "constitution free zones".
      You detain and torture people in prisons with little to no judicial oversight or recourse.
      Your own president has executed a citizen under the guise of terrorism overseas by air-strike without any due process.
      Your idea of due process when you think you get it happens behind closed doors in secret courts.
      And even when someone in power occasionally has an idea that is positive to your freedoms it gets struck down in congress, in the white house, or better yet just simply gets done anyway without oversight by a three letter agency.

      10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but quite frankly your bill of rights these days holds about as much weight as the old parchment it is written on. The only thing that the government truly understands is that the instant militia is too busy watching Fox News and Lip Sync Battle to care about attacking their government, and even if they did your small militia is up against the might of the government's own army, the mightiest in the world, unless you can get them to disagree with their own leaders in which case you have a coup which history has shown always works out really well (/sarcasm).

    17. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 0, Troll

      The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.

      No, it actually doesn't. You're an idiot and I can easily prove it. The "elites", which seems to be your code word for the US government, has nuclear bombs and drone missiles. Let me know how your army of people with pea shooters does against them. There seems to be an endless number of people here in America who actually believe that the "people" with their handguns can actually overthrow an "evil" US government. Ha ha ha. Again, let me know how your army of peasants does against nuclear bombs. If the supposedly "evil" government decided that killing you and your pals was in its best interests, you'll be dead.

    18. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo.
      Karmashock thinks he is informed, but he doesn't even understand his own Constitution, let alone know the first thing about Australia.

    19. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      OK. In that case it would degenerate into a violent civil war. No one is trying to defend a city from the people that live in it... they are trying to pound them into the ground until they stop doing anything. The US would be devastated while the rest fo the world adjusts without having to put up with your shenanigans.

    20. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been an AC on Slashdot since the 90s. Not because I'm a coward, but because I don't fucking care about Karma or, for that matter, pleasing YOU.

    21. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mostly the same is not the same.
      anyone can say they have rule of law. you need to have a liberty centric bill of rights/constitution to go with the rule of law, or you end up with politicians legislating away rights in an attempt to remove the possibility for us to do bad things in the first place. Don't like that people can get shot by guns?, ban guns that way no one can have the opportunity to shoot anyone else. That is simply the removal of freedom for the "greater good" not the rule of law. The rule of law coupled with the idea of freedom results in a situation where you can choose to do anything you want, but are punished accordingly if you abuse that choice , if you abuse that freedom, and choose to harm others. anything else is the proverbial slippery slope. period.
      As many people have said , in various forms, you can not have both freedom, and safety. freedom is dangerous by its very nature. freedom means you are free to do bad things. other people are free to harm you. That is one of the prices of freedom. many people are not comfortable with that, they would prefer to be presented the promise of safety , the hope of safety in exchange for their freedom. And that is their choice, its just not mine. ... because there is no such thing as safety, if someone wants to do me harm they can pick up a hammer or a machette , or a rock and kill me if they really want to.

    22. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical.

      Resorting to "you're obtuse" or you're "stupid" is where you hide when you can't refute an argument.

    23. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Well these guys certainly don't have nukes or make their own missiles, and they seem to have done a pretty decent job at fighting off the U.S. government.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    24. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Informative

      A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.

      Many locals would agree and it is a long sort over goal for the country. When the country was presented an opportunity for its own Bill of Right in the 1980s many of the shock jock radio announcers lobbied heavily against it and it was defeated.

      I hope that some day one of those radio announcers are on the business end of not having those rights. As for the many morons who voted against the Bill it just shows how sadly apathetic many Australians have become, largely due to Murdoch and the News empire that grew up in Australia before becoming an American company.

      Faux News is the enemy of freedom in the land of the free.

      Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.

      Yes, and many times it happens to promote American interests because our politicians are too spineless to stand up for themselves. No one likes it and the Trans Pacific Partnership is a fine example. We are not even allowed to see the text of a bill that is to be passed into law.

      They are things that everyday Australians object to and I'm certain everyday Americans would find it offensive too.

      I know my views are incomprehensible to many.

      No they are not and many reasonable educated Australians would agree with you. We need a Bill of Rights more than ever. If you are prepared to make your views known to Australian politicians it would be most welcome.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    25. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Yea. The elites in afghanistan and iraq are careful. Very careful.

    26. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... okay

      ""Right to life

      The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia and justifiable homicide.""

      So are you saying the US is bad because it executes?
      Saying the US is bad because it goes to war?
      Saying the US is bad because we allow abortions?
      Saying the US is bad because "euthanasia"?

      What is your beef there?

      As to "right to roam"... we have public parks and national parks and all sorts of public easements. What are you asking for? A right to trespass? Don't be silly.

      Lets see if you can back your position up at all. Because this is already looking too easy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      "The Iraqi army in the first gulf war was far better equipped, trained and experienced and they lasted about 45mins."

      So that explains why the present situation in Iraq has been a cakewalk for the past 10 years?

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    28. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Cite the constitution free zones?

      Our constitution makes no provision for torturing terrorists etc. So I don't know what you're talking about. And really calling waterboarding torture is a bit of a stretch. Regardless, all that whine does is force us to go back to Cold War methods which means either truth drugs or we give the fellow to a willing allied power that will do the deed for us while we take notes. Either way... you're denied your political ammunition which is really all you care about in the first place.

      As to killing an enemy in the field, you don't need to have a trial for that. If during WW2, someone joined the Nazis and started helping them with something... it would have been fine to kill them in Germany or where ever on the spot.This is a well understood concept and is not in dispute by any but the comically ignorant or irredeemably deceitful.

      As to secret courts, you have a very good point here for once. And I agree with you. However, problems and struggles do not negate the whole character of the nation or its laws.

      As to problems in our congress... this is a price you pay when you have a real democracy. People don't always agree. If you want everyone to march in step, then have yourself a dictatorship. Go to North Korea and listen to them all clap in unison. Every freedom has a price. If you have to ask the price then you can't afford it. Put the chains on and leave those burdens to your betters... I choose to pay the price. Freedom is worth everything or someone will talk you into slavery.

      As to this notion that the army is going to engage a rebellion directly... the context is wrong. yes... the people all together would not be able to defeat the US military if it held disapline and followed orders and there were no defections. But it do none of those things.

      And beyond that you're missing that we're everywhere. If things get that crazy the insurgency will be unstoppable. You saw how much trouble the US military had in Iraq with insurgents. Imagine that with the US population.

      You're thinking in terms of pitched battles. Since when have the American PEOPLE ever fought that way? We didn't fight that way against the British and we wouldn't fight against any other oppressive military force that way either.

      Hit and run. Strike and vanish.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    29. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that a "instant militia of millions"(untrained fat blokes with hunting rifles and the occasional AR-15 wielding loon) is even vaguely a threat to the US military.

      You are an idiot. A nation full of citizens who are ready to fight using guerilla tactics
      is impossible to conquer.

      Next time, instead of spouting your bullshit, go suck some cock. It's probably the one thing you know how to do well.

    30. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      Did the insurgency in Iraq ever have a hope in hell of making a dent on the occupying US military there? No of course not.. they did the sensible plan and kept pecking away until we all knew what was going to happen happened... America would tire of the stupid decision of going into Iraq and and shuffle off home. Que ISIS. You are talking about the US military fighting within the US against US citizens. You can't wander away from that.

    31. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      America self corrects towards freedom/liberty. Australia does not.

    32. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends who's attacking. An external force needs to deal with the U.S. Military and then a prolonged guerlllia campaign against any state they occupy. If the U.S. Military is ordered to attack its own citizens then you're tiptoeing into a highly unlikely scenario. But if it happened then they'd face the same issue minus all the deserters who would join the citizen's fight in a civil war.

    33. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      the TTP probably violates a lot of our laws and rules as well. It was another of these "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it" laws.

      We'll see what happens. If it is what we fear, then there are going to be some fierce court challenges. If not... then it is probably much a do about nothing.

      I'd like to know what other thing your politicians have done in the US's interests that violated your rights though? Just curious.

      Politicians don't respond to that sort of thing. They understand the blade at the throat, the steel at the back, the edge of the cliff that is too close for comfort.

      Politics is about leverage. Think of it like a game of Go or like a game of chess when your king is in check. You just have to give them no choice. They do this or something bad happens to THEM. Ideally they lose their jobs or an election or something.

      This is a big part of how politics works in any republic. We're all putting each other in "check"... forcing each other to comply. There is very little actual compromise or common ground or anything of that nature at this point. At least in the US. Its all "you will do this because you have no choice"... or "do whatever you want because your opinion doesn't matter any more"...

      That's how ugly the politics have gotten in the US. Discourse is pointless. Appeals to reason are pointless. Sound and rational arguments are pointless.

      All that matters is naked power plays. If it doesn't stop, we will destroy ourselves with our mutual loathing for each other and the system itself. But it can't stop unless people of sound mind love reason and the nation more than their temporary political agendas. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

      Both sides are hoping to bring peace to the system by crushing the opposition so badly they come on their knees begging for terms. So far, no one is cracking.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    34. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Australia has more economic red tape than the USA. By a looooong way.

    35. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I meet people new to Australia I let them know that they need to assume that anything they are about to do is illegal, because Australia is like that. We have considerably more restrictions than the USA in every facet of our lives. We are one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world.

    36. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Which is why they wouldn't do it. Every oppressor always starts with disarming the people.

      I am not a peasant. You do not disarm me unless you want violence.

      A citizen is something between a peasant and a noble. You do not disarm nobles. They'll kill you or die trying if you try to disarm them.

      Peasants you can disarm. They don't fight back much. They do what they're told. They think the thoughts they're told to think.

      I am neither a noble nor a peasant. I am a citizen. You do not disarm me unless you're prepared to come and take it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    37. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're under the assumption that the U.S. Military is full of people who would follow unlawful orders to attack their own! Ummm no.

      And in what fantasy does an evil U.S. Government nuke its own soil to kill off it's enemy (the people it is trying to subjugate) thereby having no one to rule (they're all dead) and nowhere to live (it's a nuclear wasteland)? Get some perspective.

    38. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, in the previous poster's defense, rule of law is implied - so yes, you had a stupid argument. But you need more than just rule of law. You need laws in place to protect you.

    39. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If they nuke their own country then they don't have one. You're an idiot.

      And as to drones... they don't work on urban insurgencies. Hit and run. Strike and vanish. its over before the drone is even on station.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    40. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by quenda · · Score: 1

      Not the silly gun argument again. Hunting is popular in Australia, and we have more guns now than before the buyback. Just fewer assault rifles. People may regard the buyback (and ban on automatics) as a colossal waste of money, and an inconvenience. But having to reload between shots is hardly seen as a major attack on personal freedoms. No more than Americans resent the ban on private ownership of hand grenades. And it gives the kangaroos a sporting chance.

    41. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I've been head hunted three times by Australian firms that offered me citizenship as part of the package. I don't want it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    42. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn you are stupid.

      1- For 100 miles inland from all borders of the US, an area encompassing over 67% of the US population:

      2a - Waterboarding absolutely is torture.
      2b - Waterboarding is the LEAST of what we did.
      2c - The Constitution does NOT just apply citizens. The Constitution describes the relation between the Government and ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO ITS AUTHORITY. That includes any and all foreign nationals, noncitizens, and detainees.

      3- You're an absolute idiot who knows nothing of combat, fighting an insurgency, or the reasons we actually defeated the British. you are basing your combat theory off a war that occurred over 230 years ago without any personal knowledge of war theory or tactics. Your "hit and run" means jack squat to a Predator drone guided equipped with FLIR.

      -Signed, a Marine veteran

    43. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    44. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Death penalty it is. Even Russia doesn't execute.
      And yes, here in Germany, there is right to roam. I am allowed to walk and cycle even through private forests and field paths. In Nordic countries, for example, the right to roam is even much more extensive.

      Public parks, ha! A country where I cannot wander around as I want is an unfree country which I won't ever visit on my spare time (also I don't want to be arrested for walking, like it happened to Bob Dylan).

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    45. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I've been an AC on Slashdot since the 80s!

    46. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      People may regard the buyback (and ban on automatics)

      I'm not sure where you get your news, but in the US, fully automatic weapons have NOT been legal for the average American. If you want an automatic weapon, you have to jump through many hoops and get extra special licensing, upon which you actually give up many of your rights to the ATF for anytime searches of your house, etc.

      And if I recall..even if you get one of those, you can only own old machine guns...nothing can be owned that was made in the past few decades, but i'm not 100% sure not the dates.

      But no...MOST people in the US cannot and do no own automatic weapons.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    47. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The Bill of Rights specifically is a list of NEGATIVE rights where in the government is FORBIDDEN to make any law concerning certain things.

      As to the fact that many don't take the constitution seriously... Which segment of our political spectrum is doing that, sport?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    48. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that if a person is convicted of... personally torturing to death 100 people and then eating them... possibly wearing their skins as clothing... you know... all the fun stuff.

      You're saying I'm violating his rights if I put him in the ground?

      Don't be absurd.

      You are afforded a trial. Due process. if convicted of a capital offense, then I'm not losing any sleep over your coming oblivion.

      As to your right to roam... can you give me an example of any place that has this right? Because it sounds inherently unworkable.

      First off, private property means I have a right to decide who walks on my land and who doesn't. I'm not letting any bozo just wander on to my land whenever he wants.

      Second off, you have... airports... do you think you should just be able to wander around the run way? you have harbors... same basic concept.

      Where in the US are you not allowed to "roam" that you think you should be able to roam?

      This right you're referring to sounds like bullshit.

      I looked into this and it seems in other countries it mostly applies to coasts and being able to walk around on the beach. In the US... most states with beaches have passed laws that effectively let you do that. The exceptions being harbors and military bases. If you're upset that you can't wander around on a military base whenever you feel like it... you've got to be trolling. That's so obviously stupid that even a stupid person would realize it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    49. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that a "instant militia of millions"(untrained fat blokes with hunting rifles and the occasional AR-15 wielding loon) is even vaguely a threat to the US military.

      You tell 'em. The U.S. is really doing a bang-up job against the untrained, rag-tag terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      We've got the situation totally under control. "Mission accomplished."

    50. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ""Although this zone is not literally "Constitution free"""

      Okay so they're not actually constitution free zones.

      What they are is a zone after the border where the border patrol tries to have some defense in depth and queries people to see if they were involved in smuggling or something.

      I've also seen these questions being asked by the border patrol... and if you just cite your rights they tell you that you can go. So "constitution free" is a bullshit term for what is perhaps not the best way to do something but it isn't unreasonable for the border patrol to try and do something like that simply to do their jobs.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    51. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States had nuclear weapons in the 1940s. And yet, despite all of that awesome firepower, John F. Kennedy was murdered in 1963 by one (or two or three if you believe the conspiracy theories) man.

      How do you kill a snake? You kill the head. It seems like one rifle was enough.

    52. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bolt actions and lever actions were both "assault rifles" at one stage (I.e. Military firearms). Modern semi-auto rifles are not an issue, as can be seen in the case of NZ who still allow everything we banned, yet have a lower murder rate overall and a lower murder rate by firearms. Basically, any gun can be used as a weapon - it's the intention of the person using it that is the issue.

    53. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by quenda · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I used the wrong term. Was talking about semi-automatic rifles, not machine guns.
      You have to doing something like professionally culling herds of feral buffalo from a helicopter to get a self-loading rifle license now.
      But we haven't had any Sandy Hooks lately.

    54. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by khallow · · Score: 1

      Your "hit and run" means jack squat to a Predator drone guided equipped with FLIR.

      Unless, of course, you're doing the hit and run with the Predator.

    55. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You're saying I'm violating his rights if I put him in the ground?

      Of course, because vigilantism is domestic terrorism.

      And as for the government taking a life, in a civilised country nobody has a right to take a life, except in self defense, and even then only if there is no other way. Barbarian governments kill. And if you, as you mentioned, would have no qualms over killing people, this speaks a lot about you. Then again, you have explicitly mentioned that you want to indulge in a power fantasy, which both makes you a mentally unstable person I wouldn't want to have around.

      First off, private property means I have a right to decide who walks on my land and who doesn't. I'm not letting any bozo just wander on to my land whenever he wants.

      And this is why I say that you live in an unfree country. And on a stolen property, by the way.

      This right you're referring to sounds like bullshit.

      Sounds like bullshit to you, because you are accustomed to living in an unfree country and don't know any better.

      I looked into this and it seems in other countries it mostly applies to coasts and being able to walk around on the beach.

      Far more than that. Forests, fields, even orchards. As long as I don't damage anything I can walk there. This is my right to travel, it is inalienable and the most important right one can have, because not allowing a person to roam makes a country an open air prison.

      But to be honest, if you are typical for your kind of people, please stay where you are - in your open air prison an ocean away from here.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    56. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I used the wrong term. Was talking about semi-automatic rifles, not machine guns. You have to doing something like professionally culling herds of feral buffalo from a helicopter to get a self-loading rifle license now. But we haven't had any Sandy Hooks lately.

      Oh wow..so you're saying you can only have bolt action rifles down there? What about semi-auto pistols?

      As far as the Sandy Hook thing....it isn't that big a problem here. Sure every few years, some nut goes stupid and does something like this. But think of it...with the EXTREME number of guns in the US, of all types and calibers....we have very few mass shootings like this. And it is more of a recent phenomena.....When I grew up, you never heard much about this and gun laws were MUCH more lax back then it seemed. No background checks, etc.

      Maybe it is just the people we're raising these days and how we're drugging them that is the problem, not the guns.

      But even so, you only heard of these whack jobs periodically, it isn't like this is an epidemic here in the US.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    57. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by quenda · · Score: 1

      Oh wow..so you're saying you can only have bolt action rifles down there?

      Yes, not even semi-auto .22s. But we keep them for hunting, not overthrowing the government, so it is tolerable.

      What about semi-auto pistols?

      Oddly, they are still legal, up to 10 rounds. And of course, criminals are much more likely to use handguns than assault rifles. But its a lot of hassle to get a handgun license here, and not many people have them. You certainly cannot carry them in public.

    58. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Fox News is an interesting phenomenon. Murdoch is retiring and his kids are not like him. In fact most of the kids hate Roger Ailes (head of Fox News) at least if you go by what's reported in the press. That's the reason for the quick press release by Fox news that Ailes would continue to report to Rupert when James took over which was immediately repudiated by the corporate side. I'd be willing to bet that over the next 5 years or so Fox will begin to change and that change will accelerate heavily once Rupert dies. I wouldn't be surprised to see Roger Ailes fired in the next couple years.

    59. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent people have been put to death. If we had a 100% perfect justice system, you might have an argument. But, since it hasn't happened to you it isn't a problem. Personally, as an American, I find capital punishment and torture to be disgusting and immoral.

    60. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Put them on US soil in an actual military battle and see how they'd fare. Thought so.

    61. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Wow, you fearmonger much?

      You have declared "constitution free zones".

      No we don't. There is nowhere in the United States that is a "constitution free zone". That's just media blowing something up out of proportion. There are cases where the border patrol oversteps it's bounds, but that doesn't mean you don't have the rights afforded you by the constitution. Worst case is it escalates up to a court, the court sets it right (through due process). It's not perfect, but it's easy to point and say that's not perfect when you aren't charged with coming up with the "perfect" solution.

      You detain and torture people in prisons with little to no judicial oversight or recourse.

      And? These aren't American citizens, on a military base, and (mostly) classified as enemy combatants in a war. What OTHER country sends war criminals through their normal judicial system? None. Oh, and you are talking about 780 people.

      Your own president has executed a citizen under the guise of terrorism overseas by air-strike without any due process.

      Enemy combatants in war. Sucks to be them.

      Your idea of due process when you think you get it happens behind closed doors in secret courts.

      Just because it is behind closed doors and not open to public scrutiny by itself does not make it less of a due process. Not all trials and decisions necessarily need to be a media spectacle. It does make it harder to prove (or disprove) improper behavior, but that doesn't make it so. I'm not claiming the system is perfect, but just better than the alternatives.

      And even when someone in power occasionally has an idea that is positive to your freedoms it gets struck down in congress, in the white house, or better yet just simply gets done anyway without oversight by a three letter agency.

      That's your opinion. Feel free to voice your opinion and vote for change.

    62. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good in theory... but the practice is that the majority of amendments comprising the bill of rights have been ripped up and used as toilet paper in the government's bathrooms for at least the past 70 years.

    63. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of asymmetrical warfare? US drones couldn't keep a bunch of countries in the Middle East from losing territory to ISIS - and that's just one example from the past year. I'm sure you can think of more. When insurgents are basically indistinguishable from the general population, and living in the same areas... well, somehow I can't see the US government dropping a nuke on Chicago or Houston.

    64. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Not this tired old argument again.

      There is no force on earth that can stand up to the US military in a conventional battle. Does that mean every other group or nation should stop buying weapons because that would be wasted money?

      Taliban and others have shown that US military is quite vulnerable in unconventional warfare. And that was in places where US soldiers didn't care that much about the local population. How do you think it will go down when the guerrilla fighters are blending into the civilian population of Kansas and Virginia instead of Mosul and Kandahar?

      And there's the question of loyalty in the military. If things got so bad and the federal gov't so hated that a large scale armed uprising took place, it's quite likely that many of soldiers will either refuse to fight or join the other side. (look up Robert E. Lee sometime, he was a guy in the US Army but quit when his hometown buddies rose up against the gov't)

      If the army refused to fight, the Capitol police and Secret Service can still own any unarmed mob storming DC and mow them down. But an armed mob? Not so easy.

    65. Re: Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much such an order can be lawfully issued only after the citizens have seceded and declared themselves non-citizens. Which is pretty much the Civil War scenario someone pointed out above. There's no upside in that for *anyone*......we USians need to find ways to stick together, because ammunition and force projection only go so far. Beyond that we need every possible brain of every possible person of every possible community and morphology engaged to stay competitive against the more heterogenous nations that have fewer difficulties incentivizing people to work together.

      I don't want to ban guns, though I don't shoot - if you had my eyesight, you wouldn't either :-) - but I do like the idea of getting everyone, including people in marginalized communities, on board to realize the US' potential.

    66. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one to assume this post is intended as "funny"?

    67. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      Robert E Lee? He lost. Terribly. Richmond was sacked and the south lost. What the fuck are you talking about? Or do we still have insurgent groups spread about the south fighting for their cause?

    68. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      The US abandoned Iraq a long time ago. Did you not notice this?

    69. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Australia doesn't have a similar framework to the bill of rights? Have you read the Australian constitution? Do you in fact know anything about it?

    70. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (not GP)

      Unless, of course, you're doing the hit and run with the Predator.

      Don't need to be that fancy. Just set up booby traps and IEDs. You're not trying to assassinate specific people here. You just need to hit something, anything. Gotta think like a terrorist man, cuz that what you would be.

      That said, I don't think a rebellion would win, not because they theoretically can't, but because the American people are just too stupid to pull it off (I mean, these are the people who believe in AGW). There's theory, and then there's practice.

    71. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      How about those insurgents in the Iraq post-9/11 invasion?
      How did that work out?

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    72. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      I went through some effort to make myself as clear as possible, but let me go further since you're still not getting it.

      Your point was that US Army is so overwhelmingly powerful that nobody has a chance to win against them and thus civilians should be disarmed. My rebuttal to that was, that's only true in conventional warfare. Then I cite Taliban as an example of how US Army is vulnerable to guerrilla tactics.

      Then in a separate paragraph, with its own introductory sentence that starts with "And there's the question of loyalty in the military...", I point out that the army might not even fight at all. Robert E. Lee was mentioned in this paragraph as an example of a US Army officer deciding not to fight for the US Army. The citation of Robert E. Lee was in context of this paragraph only, not the entire post.

      Get it now?

    73. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      But we keep them for hunting, not overthrowing the government, so it is tolerable.

      Hmm..that is EXACTLY the primary reason the founding fathers in the US spelled out the 2nd amendment, in case we HAD to fight back against a government that was becoming too overbearing and expanding its powers beyond what the constitution specifically limits it to.....

      But its a lot of hassle to get a handgun license here,

      You have to actually apply and get a govt. issues license to get an handgun (or any other weapon)??

      Wow...glad we don't have to do that here. I've always bought my guns from private individuals, so the state and the feds have no idea about what transactions I've done for firearms (used cash), nor how many nor what I own.

      They don't *need* to know.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    74. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      What the fuck on earth ever gave you the impression that I want civilians to be disarmed?

      And of course the US military would have massive problems internally firing upon their own people. Why would I adress such an obvious point?

    75. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      The US is gone and Iraq is in a shambles? Iran is now a massively more powerful nation in the region and the US and her alliance have been seriously undermined by the whole debacle?

    76. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Who knows. Given a long enough time, the outcome could be similar.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    77. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      Then you are essentially talking about a permanent split on the Union of the United States. Which may or may not be a practical outcome. I think there would be a danger of a "Balkanisation" of such a thing. For the international community the first priority would be securing a world economy without a unified US and concerns about limiting access to nuclear weapons to the newly formed nation states. It would be something disconcerting to the former close allies of the US... I can see them fornign alliances with e US fragments.

    78. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Enemy combatants in war. Sucks to be them.

      But not a war, because otherwise the rule of law would be applied....

    79. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like being a slave/serf is working out well for you. It gets old to hear English/Australians, etc, act like they're enlightening us with their wisdom, you fucking sycophant.

    80. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gun-Free" zones. That sounds like a 2nd Amendment-free zone to me.

      "Free Speech zones". Sounds like a 1st Amendment-free zone to me.

      Pennsylvania has ruled that cops can search your car without your consent (they're the only ones that have blatantly ruled on it, every other state's cops do it, anyway). Sounds like a 4th Amendment-free zone to me.

    81. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And how well has that been working for you Americans recently?

      Thanks for asking, pretty good actually. Moved to the US from New Zealand 3 years ago, better paid jobs, economy not tied to one single large export (NZ is dairy, Aus is mining) better benefits, cheaper houses and realistic cost of living. Heck, decent houses are actually affordable on one average tech worker income. The state we live in will even GIVE you the downpayment for your first house interest free. Also really nice to live somewhere where the government isnt playing nanny or inventing some new BS to jack a new tax onto something again, or only doing things that favor the governments close business buddies and screwing over the average joe at every turn. New Zealand and Australian governments are only there to benefit them selves and their buddies.

    82. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Que ISIS.

      Cue ISIS.

    83. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      That's a myth. #5 on
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      #4 is the one I'm more interested in though. There HAVE been many anti-gun laws, including during colonial times.

      This specific one isn't mentioned in that article, but I did see the author of a book called "The Second Amendment: A Biography" on Charlie Rose a while ago (it was from a late 2014 episode I think).. There were laws AGAINST having loaded guns in the house in the late 1700s.

    84. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Certainly it is under threat. However, in Australia they don't even have it... there's nothing to assault. And those trying to defend their freedoms have no bulwarks to hide behind or use shut down oppressive legislation.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    85. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Vigilantism is not domestic terrorism.

      The point of terrorism is to intimidate the population so they put political pressure on the politicians to effect the changes in the society that the terrorist desires.

      Vigilantism is merely taking the law as you see it into your own hands.

      They're not remotely similar.

      An honor killing for example by an islamist of his own family members is not domestic terrorism.

      That same islamist cutting off the head of someone in public and then talking about how people should convert to islam is domestic terrorism.

      Do you see?

      This is also different from insurgenceis and lots of other types of violence.

      What is more, in this context we were talking about executions by the state which pre supposed a trial and conviction thus making the "killing" an "execution" which makes it legal within the frame work of the society and thus cannot be terrorism of any kind.

      Learn to use words properly or you cannot communicate or think correctly. Its like writing out an equation and randomly confusing your addition with your multiplication signs. You're just going to fuck everything up. So please take care to use the correct words.

      As to your notion that I do not live in a free country because I don't permit random people to trespass on my property....

      Cite a country that lets you do this thing?

      You did not answer that question. When you cite such a country... i will then look at exceptions to their rule to obtain the effective rule. Then I'll show how my own society effectively permits the same things thus rendering the entire complaint meaningless.

      Your argument makes no sense. I suspect it is because of what you showed with your terrorism argument. I don't think you use language properly and so you don't think clearly. This leads you to make irrational comments and think irrational thoughts.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    86. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Yes. I am aware of it.

      Are you aware of either the Austrlian legal system or the US legal system?

      Who are you to even have an opinion on the issue at all?

      Did you like that question? If not... don't presume to ask it yourself. I am quite good at condescension and you want to play a game of who can stick their nose higher in the air and laugh at the insects below him... you'll I'm an expert.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    87. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia still executes, just not their criminals.

    88. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by ksheff · · Score: 1

      the only automatic weapons that US citizens can own legally with a class-3 license are the ones manufactured prior to 1986, so you are right in that there is a limited supply of them.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    89. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by quenda · · Score: 1

      to fight back against a government that was becoming too overbearing and expanding its powers beyond what the constitution specifically limits it to.....

      Well, thats happened. How is the revolution going?

      Last time you had a revolution, it killed 2% of the population (equivalent to 6 million today), and only benefitted the elite 1% . What was so terrible about Canada? For ordinary people, rules stayed the same, and taxes went up. Just a change of management. I'm not sure you can afford another one.

    90. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Unless you do this... then its totally legal:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      One thing I am waiting for is for the technology to advance to a certain point where banning a machine from being owned becomes as comically pointless as banning drugs that can be grown in a closet with a grow lamp.

      Those that say they're on the right side of history often as not don't understand what history is or how little it cares for their ideologies.

      What prevails is game theory... personal and collective advantage.

      You can't stop the tech.

      And the CNC and 3d printers are just the start. I saw a dynamic refinery the other day. It used magnetic fields to control precise and tiny droplets of liquid. The liquid can be mixed, heated, cooled, subjected to pressures... and that means you have a dynamic refinery... a small scale chemical or even biological factory.

      That means if you were so inclined you could produce explosives or neuro toxins.

      The notion of controlling society by controlling access to the technology is rapidly becoming obsolete. This worked during the industrial revolution.

      But what do you do when everyone owns a micro factory that can produce anything?

      Keeping order by banning things is not going to work in the future.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    91. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Beyond that, how is he going to target me in a city with a predator? How do you sort the insurgents from the civilians?

      We had terrible trouble doing that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I mean... we could have just killed them all indiscriminately and won that way very easily. But for a lot of reasons you can't do that. Which means you need to sort them and that's very very hard to do.

      Now imagine if on top of that the insurgents aren't foreigners that don't understand your culture, your organizational structure, or are able to "pass" for one of you. Lets say the insurgents are indistinguishable not only from civilians but from your own security forces?

      Now you are truly screwed.

      And we can already see the police being understandably afraid of the armed population. Look at how fast they jump into armored cars, wear full body armor, and then just sit outside the danger area and hope it stops before they have to go into it. And even then... they only go in because the people they're dealing with tend to NOT be armed.

      Imagine a riot where a significant portion of the riot has guns and gas masks. The ratio of police to rioters had better be close to equal because the police are going to enjoy very few advantages when the metal meets the meat in that conflict.

      You're talking about French Revolution scales of chaos.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    92. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well, thats happened. How is the revolution going?

      Honestly, if things keep going they way they are, I'm afraid something WILL break out.

      I don't think it will be soon, but man...there's starting to be a LOT of pissed off people over here, and the US is quickly changing its character in many ways that are not setting well with many.

      We already are seeing sporadic riots in the past couple years....not sure what the spark will be to set things off potentially, but I do see something major could happen.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    93. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Australian constitution has only two inferred rights, one is free political speech (it doesn't extend beyond that) and the other is a right to vote. All other 'rights' are protected under common law, which can be revoked by an act of parliament. A lot of the time, acts give powers to certain positions to provide regulations which change change the law, without it having to be voted and passed in parliament. NSW state constitution more or less delivers the scope of the parliaments powers at the start of the constitution with the following;

      "The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever".

      This more or less just says that the parliament can make whatever law it wishes. The rest of the constitution makes procedural requirements and specifies the manner of which parliament must conduct itself. There is no bill of rights. The reference to the federal constitution is only because some powers were ceded by the states and given to the federal government, so their only limitation is regarding a fairly narrow number of aspects.

    94. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights.

      I can appreciate that. Something closer to the Canadian Bill of Rights would be even better, of course, but at least it's something, especially since marriage equality seems to be implied by it.

      On the other hand, Australia doesn't have elected elected judges, elected prosecutors, grand juries, plea bargaining, civil asset forfeiture, police getting military surplus gear, Reid technique interrogations, or capital punishment. So you if you do get in trouble with the law, you'll probably be treated humanely and will get a reasonably fair trial even if you're not the sort of person who has $15M gathering dust.

      We also don't have elected school boards. You can probably appreciate the advantage of that.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    95. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You don't even have the intestinal fortitude to log in to Slashdot and you're picking on someone for their level of macho bullshit?

      FTFY

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    96. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if things keep going they way they are, I'm afraid something WILL break out.

      Let me put it this way: The US actually rounded up its own citizens and put them in mass internment camps just a few decades ago. That did not spark a revolution. If that won't do it, nothing will.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    97. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Every oppressor always starts with disarming the people.

      Not even remotely true. At the risk of invoking Godwin, the Weimar Republic had tougher gun laws than... uh... that government that came after it. You know the one.

      If you can convince people that oppression is in their own best interest, if you can hammer home the "fact" that some subset of the citizenry are actually outsiders or traitors, then history shows that an armed citizenry can be a dictator's willing accomplice.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    98. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Elected judges was an attempt to put the judiciary under some kind of democratic control. Though it mostly doesn't work because no one pays attention to it. A big issue with our democracy is that people are often not involved enough and those that want to be involved are discouraged from doing so. And of course... lots of people that are already involved are either crazy, corrupt, or stupid.

      As to elected prosecuters, I don't see a problem with that.

      As to grand juries... explain your problem there, I can't even anticipate what your issue is there.

      As to plea bargaining, bullshit... every legal system has that to some extent. You might differ on the form but the fact of it has been there since always. An old king could plea bargain with someone. This has never changed.

      As to civil asset forfeiture, it is only a problem in a few places and it is a new problem. Mostly it effects the poor and very ignorant. It tends to backfire hilariously when they try it on anyone that actually knows their rights. A thing you have to appreciate is that the US government will exploit ignorance. It will TRY to get away with illegal things on the assumption that you're too ignorant to realize it is illegal. When challenged, these actions tend to fail in court.

      As to police getting military gear... again a recent issue. Our Dear Leader is a deeply annoying fellow and I'd rather not get into it.

      As to Reid, any tool can be misused. It doesn't mean the tool is wrong. This is a common philosophical issue that I run into all the time. People blame the tool or the technique instead of the practitioner. If you are a reasonable and honest police officer then the Reid method is fine. If you're not then lets be honest here and point out that anything the guy does is going to be tainted because he's a slimy person.

      As to capital punishment... I see little difference between executing someone and throwing them in jail for 50 years. This obsession with the death penalty for capital crimes is really quite tiresome. The legitimate argument is that the justice system has problems and will arrive at false convictions. I find that to be a valid argument however this problem is not solved by doing away with capital punishment. It is rather solved by addressing the failings of the justice system itself.

      As to getting trouble with the law, our system treats you humanly to the extent it is either ethical or fears reprisal. This is one of the reasons americans are so insistent on maintaining a deterrence. Our system is opportunistic and will exploit weakness. It does it all the time. Remember what I said about it exploiting ignorance? It does that with any kind of weakness. The US system could become quite tyrannical if the citizens stopped policing it and the elites stopped fearing us. I don't know what is going on in Australia but my cynicism leads me to believe this is a general human issue so I would need the government to fear me or to know that the people at large would mob to protect me.

      I have no such confidence so I would feel very vulnerable.

      As to elected school boards, the issue there is more the teacher's unions than it is the boards. But I agree our education system is fucked up beyond repair. We basically need an institution wide enema and then to compartmentalize the schools so they fail or succeed individually and not everything at once.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    99. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      And before you bad mouth it, consider that the Swiss literally give all the men in their society a machine gun and a bag full of bullets.

      The Swiss also have compulsory military service for all of those men, during which time they receive professional instruction in the responsible use and keeping of the firearms.

      The USA? Nope.

    100. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      An odd reference and not actually true. Hitler only got supreme power because the politicians were afraid of the brown shirts. And the brownshirts were only a threat because they could intimidate people in a society where gun ownership was uncommon.

      The primary holders of guns outside of the government were private armies that largely went back to Germany's Prussian past.

      Had gun ownership been as common in germany as it is in the US... it is likely the brownshirts never would have been the problem they became and that the german legislature would thus not have felt compelled to make Hitler dictator.

      Hitler didn't push the legislature to give him control by jew bashing. He got it by pointing a loaded gun against their heads and giggling.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    101. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      And Lee Harvey Oswald was trained to shoot by the US Marine corps.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The military training aspect doesn't make someone less dangerous. That might teach proper use but your problem with guns is not that people don't know how to use them but what they might choose to do with them.

      Proper instruction makes someone MORE dangerous... not less.

      So your problem with US gun owners is that you think they'll "miss"? Because the military will of course teach how to be better marksmen and hit their target with some more consistency.

      What bothers me about arguments like yours is that you're playing rhetorical tic tac toe. You're not thinking your moves out ahead which means you don't error check dumb arguments that will self destruct about 2 seconds after you make them.

      Without tooting my own horn here... I play rhetorical chess. I'm not claiming to be a chess master here... but I am saying I think my argument out a few steps in advance. Which means I don't make arguments that will immediately self destruct. I also accurately anticipate counter arguments and fortify my position against such arguments before they're even made.

      Now I don't know why I appear to almost f'ing unique in this quality on this board. Its frankly pretty shocking to me. But I first learned to do this when I was about 10 years old. A great uncle of mine asked me a question during a relative's funeral reception... of all places... and I answered his question immediately. He refused to accept the answer and said "you didn't think long enough"... He refused to listen to my answer until I had had about 10 minutes to think about it. Where upon my answer did actually change and develop a great deal more depth. He taught me a very important lesson on that day. That the first and immediate answer to any question is not the result of thinking but rather of guessing and memory. Your intelligence has no chance to actually influence your answer yet. You're not thinking long enough to actually think at all.

      Thus... while it is impossible for me to ask you to do this without you taking any offense... I want you to humor me and think about answer a bit longer. Put aside the emotional responses and the bluster. That means nothing to me. Its at best pitiable... so just don't do it.

      Think about your answer a good 30 seconds. Imagine what my counter response will be and try to improve your argument so that I don't walk through it like a curtain of fog. Once you've learned to do this you can distinguish in yourself when you are thinking and when you're just remembering prerecorded answers.

      Only by thinking for ourselves do our opinions even have meaning. So many people with opinions never even formed them themselves at all. They just heard something, stored the opinion, and then when asked they play it back like parrots. We are controllable and easily manipulated if we allow other people to store opinions in our brains and have them be played back without consideration.

      This is why they don't teach critical thinking in dictatorships. To be more than a drone you have to actually challenge these stored concepts. You can't even make them your own. That's just a way of saying you conformed. You need to make your own opinions from scratch. No more training wheels. No more cheat sheets. Think.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    102. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      You are afforded a trial. Due process. if convicted of a capital offense, then I'm not losing any sleep over your coming oblivion.

      Does that mean you wouldn't allow appeals? Have you done the math on the exoneration rate for death penalty convictions in the United States? Because I have.

      Statistically, if you were sentenced to death in the United States between 2001 and 2010, the chance was over 8% that you would be exonerated on appeal. That's the reality: that over 8% of the time, the government's "due process" has fucked up and ordered the execution of the wrong person.

      Sadly, it's not actually possible to determine just _how much_ over 8% that chance is - i.e. how many innocents have been executed. Particularly since the government has fought very hard to prevent attempts to examine the possible innocence of those it has already executed.

      Here's an experiment for you. Line up thirteen friends. Select one at random. Explain to him that your government has just sentenced him to death for a capital crime he did not commit. Ask him how he feels about that. Ask him whether he'd truly mind you not losing any sleep over the fact that a government decided to execute your friend and called it justice.

    103. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before you bad mouth it, consider that the Swiss literally give all the men in their society a machine gun and a bag full of bullets.

      Those Swiss men are the Army. Yes, that clearly was the concept, but it didn't happen in the US. As OP points out, it's lunacy to believe the US population for all their weapons would be able outright to defeat the US military (prolonged campaign of resistance as was mounted in Iraq and Afghanistan is the best that could be hoped for).

      Your point that the "US military is mostly made up of their sons and brothers," which is to say it would be hoped the US military would never agree to subdue the population, is rather more sensible.

    104. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Appeals are fine so long as they're within reason and do not encumber the sentence.

      If you need endless appeals it means you have low confidence in the judicial process and that means you need to reform the judicial process... not that you need to ban a specific type of punishment.

      As to 8 percent... the stats I saw said 4 percent. 4 percent is still very high but statistics don't tell you what is going on. I'd need to look at HOW the court was coming to these sentences erroniously before I could issue an opinion.

      This modern tendency to quote a statistic and then cite an opinion as if it is self evident from a single number is fallacious. You can't know what is going on without more detail.

      That there are issues with the US legal system is obvious and I would very seriously be interested in looking into why we arrive at these false convictions. However, the problem is not the death penalty. As all these studies conclude, the number of false life time sentence convictions is likely much much higher because those cases get much less scrutiny. What is more, the plea bargain system likely needs to be reformed since it might be contributing to miscarriages of justice.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    105. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.

      We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS ... fine, just please do it elsewhere thanks. You'd also hate, I'd hazard, the duty to vote which pertains to Australian citizenship.

      OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    106. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      I've been offered Australian citizenship several times actually, chuck.

      And as to your opinions of my needs... I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible. And you do. You don't even begin to understand me. I baffle you. And the fact that you don't even realize it only speaks to the degree of confusion.

      The point of being dangerous is not to intimidate people that aren't meaning me any harm or being anything other than friendly. The vast majority of gun owners in the US are just normal nice people. They don't hurt anyone much less kill anyone.

      That you immediately feel threatened because I have the ability to hurt you IF you come after me... well... how should I interpret that? To me, that sounds like you want to make it easy to fuck me over and the fact that I'm armed would be a threat to your plans.

      Sound paranoid? I can't imagine why my ownership of guns would bother you. You could give me a nuclear weapon and I'd be less likely to ever use it than would... france. I'm not a psychopath. I'm just a normal nice guy. But I'm not a fan of being helpless or at your mercy.

      This is actually a big issue with US investment firms as well. A lot of countries wonder why they don't get any investment. This is basically what it boils down to... they don't feel their interests would be protected. This is not a gun issue in this case but a legal issue. Eastern europe for example is not getting heavy US investment despite lots of pressure from the US state department to do just that because the eastern european countries still have a lot of soviet era judges and legal practices in place that mean if you invest in those countries your investment could be taken from you the instant it starts to become profitable.

      This means you risk losing money if the investment doesn't work out and you risk losing everything if it does.

      You can at best break even if it does "okay".

      No one wants to invest under those circumstances. And that is despite many eastern european countries having a strategic national NEED for investment to keep Russia from eating them.

      Every country is attached to its way of doing things. If you want the Americans to come... you have to do things in ways that we find acceptable.

      No one is forcing you to change anything. If you don't want us. Don't accommodate us and we won't come.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    107. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the next time you "think my argument out a few steps in advance", you could first bother to notice that you completely missed the other fellow's point, and he's now wondering if you're a few planks short of a deck.

      The military training aspect doesn't make someone less dangerous. That might teach proper use but your problem with guns is not that people don't know how to use them but what they might choose to do with them.

      Actually, grasshopper, my problem is NOT with guns, it is with irresponsible gun owners. What I am is pro-responsibility. Learn your weapon. Maintain your weapon. Secure your weapon. Your weapon is not a toy*. I'm not afraid that US gun owners will miss, I'm afraid that their gun will hit - the wrong poor bastard - because the owner didn't bother to learn basic firearm safety.

      That was, in fact, my entire damn point. The Swiss do not just "give" weapons and ammunition to all the men in their society. The rifle and pistol so issued are responsibilities, provided so that the citizen may defend their right and the right of their family and nation to independence and freedom, and the citizen will accept that responsibility and the associated training or be deemed unfit to bear those arms.

      You put false words in my mouth ("your problem with guns is..."), made incorrect assumptions about my ability, and you did indeed toot your own horn. Nice shootin' there, I'm sure your foot deserved everything you gave it...

      *Do not mistake a "tool that you enjoy practicing with" for a "toy". It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye by way of exiting the back of their skull.

    108. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.

      What makes the US different is that its Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of rights given to citizens. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you any rights you didn't already have under the Constitution, and it doesn't limit government powers any more than the Constitution. The fact that you think the Bill of Rights is important is a sad reflection on how much the US Constitution is being ignored.

      Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.

      Australia is doing well in the area of economic freedoms: http://www.heritage.org/index/ Economic freedoms are inseparable from other freedoms, and the fact that the US government has been increasingly violating them also curtails many other freedoms. That may be attractive to wealthier folks. Having said that, I wouldn't want to move to Australia. Beautiful as it is, I think in practice, I think its society and culture are still pretty limiting compared to the US.

      The Bill of Rights are the RIGHTS the PEOPLE demand of the GOVERNMENT WORKERS. When they do their job, it's meant to document that being lazy, not doing real work and abusing their authority is a crime. When they do their job, they're required to do real work and do it right.

      When someone snickers about criminals demanding their rights or yammers on about victim rights having a priority, they're being an asshole like yourself. However, since the federal and local police do this crap all the time, I guess that puts you in good company; that is if you think being a boot-licker is something to be proud of; coplover.

    109. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry BOY, but Excrement Colored Anthropoids REQUIRED a Bill of Civil Rights to ensure they could commit all their species s freedoms, because the Bill of Rights was NOT enough! (And mind the charter of Human Rights is not enough either). If you want to say you are rich but would not go to Australia, just say so! FACT IS... Australia went undiscovered by the Chinese throughout their whole millenarian History, which implicitly you are supposed to argue is MUCH OLDER and WISER than Occident. So now that WE OCCIDENT world-ize the world and discovered and settled Australia, to try to attract Chinese (milionaires) to Australia, being so MANY MORE than Australians, is as risky as letting the anthill pop open a hole in your house just because your child became an ant fan! Someone is NOT thinking on the matter. As far as I am personally concerned, I discovered a picture in a magazine and right away said, hey! that guy looks like a half brother with that man around my mother I remember from baby times and is no longer around! Australian. Next thing I know there is a Chinese guy in his place but under the same name, and he no longer looks like a half brother, but like another guy who was also around me at some time. IT makes me think Australians are very naïve and Chinese are, well, CHINESE, so the two should not mix together as a matter of principle. But this is NYC were everything (sic) is mixed and scrambled, so who cares?

    110. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      And as to your opinions of my needs

      My opinion merely agrees with yours: Australia and you are a poor match. In the event, I was also agreeing with your main point, to wit, that Australians enjoy too few civil rights. But that's merely incidental, this is all about YOU.

      I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible

      And in that you could not have been more wrong. You are (at least in respect of this topic) an open book. A book, notwithstanding your quirky self-image as "DANGEROUS," read many times before. The only thing approaching "baffling" is how someone who so compulsively writes about themselves can imagine they are any less transparent than a clear plastic bag. You're a legend in your own lunchtime mate.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    111. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      I obtained 8% by examining the US judicial system's own records back in 2013. According to the horse's mouth, between 2001 and 2010 there were 551 state executions and 48 exonerations on appeal. The math is pretty simple: 48 / ( 551 + 48 ) = 0.08 to 2 significant digits, so 8% of people convicted and awaiting execution were found innocent.

    112. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      This is officially sad. I feel sorry you. Really.

      You're saying that your issue with American gun owners is that they donn't know how to shoot properly or maintain their guns?

      You appreciate that the mass shooters if they had such training would probably kill more people if anything?

      And you appreciate that to my knowledge the entirely of the anti gun lobby has no interest in how skilled the users of the guns are but rather controlling who has them in the first place.

      If I went into the inner city and gave all the gang bangers, went out into the country and gave all the red necks... all the people most likely to have guns... I gave them weapons training...

      You'd suddenly be okay with them having "high capacity magazines"? I mean, the swiss have machine guns.

      So why not let the people have fully automatic machine guns... With the correct training of course.

      Do you know how many people the US government passes through its military every year? What if I just let retired US military have machine guns? That okay with you? Its okay with me.

      You didn't think your argument out in advance. This is pathetic.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    113. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      That last sentence's not right. Technically should be, "48 / 551 = 0.087 to 2 significant digits, so of those whose fates were ultimately determined, 8.7% were exonerated and 91.3% executed." Since it doesn't include those who were still on death row, awaiting their own final outcome.

      Grim either way.

    114. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You read but you do not understand... you are baffled.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    115. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Nope. Still mangling simple math. "48 / (551+48) = 0.08, so of those whose fates were ultimately determined, 8% were exonerated and 92% executed." Finally.

    116. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    117. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... you're not even using the quotation properly.

      Are we just quoting random things back at each other that have no contextual relevance?

      Okay:
        No legacy is so rich as honesty.
      William Shakespeare

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    118. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by cavebison · · Score: 1

      The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.

      That made me laugh. How's that working out for you so far? Maybe you can't see from inside, but from out here America looks like elite paradise. Your government is run by corporate donors, workers' rights are eroding, don't get me started on public health. Half of you can't be bothered getting off their arse to vote, so don't expect them to join you in your game of Fantasy Militia. Your guns and bluster are at best useless, at worst a cultural sickness, so don't you dare project your failures onto the rest of the world like they're the only answer to anything.

      As an Australian, we've dealt with guns to the point where we saw mass shootings and decided, as a country, NO FUCKING WAY, and you have no right to judge us as inferior. You obviously don't even see your own hypocrisy in doing so. At least we all voted for it, you stupid prat. Stay in your country, we certainly don't need your perverse American breed of self-centred, everyone-for-himself "freedom" here.

      Enjoy your guns and militia fantasies while your social fabric continues to rot, worn away by the hand-rubbing of your greedy corporations. American has clearly forgotten what Democracy, not to mention the Economy, is all about - that is, to serve the people, collectively. Instead, you serve corporations, religions and gun lobbies, to the point you can't even think for yourself and instead spout meaningless rhetoric straight from television about what it means to be "free".

      So THANK YOU for deciding to stay in America.

    119. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My records go back farther and they show 4 percent. Which is still too high.

      The issue however is not the execution by why we're getting false convictions.

      Your indifference to why we're getting false convictions implies you don't care about justice but rather have simply fixated on a talking point and wish to make an issue out of capital punishment while ignoring that the cause of the problem is not the execution but some flaw in the judicial process that not only effects executions but all convictions.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    120. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      As to rotting social fabric... mostly the result of cultural marxists... the rot is most extreme in places they control. Look at Detroit. Look at Philadelphia where we had a riot recently. Its all in zones controlled by the same people that you see the rot.

      The north used to be the great industrial heart of the US... then socialists took it over... the industry almost immediately started to die... and has not recovered. And where is the new growth? In all the places these people are not. They're even starting to fuck up silicon valley. They can't insert themselves into it with labor policy and unions so they're going to do it with political correctness. So far it isn't hurting things too badly but if they don't stop then the big tech companies will relocate out of those zones.

      These people rot everything they touch. I agree with you. But the rot you see is them. Not the nation itself.

      Outside of their zones of control... places where gun control is a dirty word... we are seeing factory growth, we are seeing economic activity, we are seeing stronger families...

      You know only what you're told about the US and the people that control our media are generally the same people fucking our country up.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    121. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Why do you keep resorting to ad hominems?

    122. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI

    123. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Explain to me why you're not interested in investigating or reforming the legal practices that lead to false convictions but are only interested in the frankly trite repetition of talking points that do nothing to address underlying problems?

      That is what you're doing.

      That isn't an ad hominem. If your dick is inside a sheep... I am not laying out an ad hominem by calling you a sheep fucker. That's a description of what is happening.

      I looked at your argument and noted what you were doing. Then cited you for doing it. That's not ad hominem.

      Ad hominem is "you're wrong because you're stupid" or "you're wrong because you're a sheep fucker".

      What I said was "You seem to be doing X which undermines the intent of your argument for Y."

      I also pointed out that the underlying problem with Y is that there are issues with X. I pointed out that removing Y does not address X and that if you could fix X then Y would naturally be fixed as well.

      So I ask again, why are you fixated on the death penality issue and not on general miscarrages of justice?

      Maybe this will help... lets look at a specific case. I'll do all the research for you.

      First thing I found on wikipedia since 2010:
      http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

      So apparently his defense do a good enough job of questioning evidence at the trial.

      Whether the guy is actually innocent or not is... somewhat murky here. Was he convicted on trumped up evidence? Possibly... also possibly he got off on a technicality.

      Next citation:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Clearly we have a case of improper interrogations leading to a questionable confession. We could reform that quite easily.

      http://www.local10.com/news/No...

      This one involves video evidence of the execution style killing of three bound people. The other person on the video is still on death row since it is less controversal that he did it. That said, why it is controversal that the other man is or is not this other fellow is not obvious to me.

      For one thing we should be seeing secondary evidence such as blood or powder residue or something. I know that is something of a CSI answer but this is the 21st century and I'd like to see that.

      The details are not obvious here. I'd have to look into this case more. It is possible that he got off on a technicality or just retried his case until the jury found him innocent. I don't know.

      One thing I'm starting to suspect is that many of the over turned convictions are themselves in error. I wouldn't say that in all or even most of them but I've seen two now that don't sound right.

      http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

      So there are issues with rewarding informants and disclosing the context of state evidence.

      See how fucking easy this is?

      We just go through all these and instead of focusing on the execution, we focus on what actually went wrong. Its far more productive and much more interesting.

      NEXT CASE:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Alright, this one has another defense lawyer that is apparently incompetent. So this is something you can bring to the law schools and the bar associations and say "hey, the quality of lawyers you're sending into the system has to be improved in this context."

      And beyond that we have a witness that lied... and some more nonsense from the prosecutors fucking with the ev

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    124. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, who cares about your ability to be mown down by your government! Australians aren't even thinking about being mown down by their government. That's why these posts from vocal gunny and bill of rights yelling Americans that come out on slashdot every single time anybody compares anything to America read as alien. I know they're from a minority of Americans, though probably an overrepresented one statistically on this website. But the whole bloody point of society and progress is to create an environment in which being mown down is an extremely low order concern. If thinking about being mown down by your government is a high order concern, your priorities are screwed up. Even with your gun crime and school massacres and little kids accidentally shooting each other occasionally, you're still infinitely safer than plenty of countries in the world.

    125. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights. They just ban things... for the children. I can't have that.

      Yet their infant mortality rate is half that of the US. Maybe there's something in that?

      The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home.

      Which is why the US has 6 times as much gun crime per capita, and 57 times the murder rates. It's a lot easier being dangerous in Australia, and you don't need a gun. Just go outside and play with the wildlife.

      You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.

      You can have rights on paper, or you have have results in reality. In any case, I'm pretty sure you're not their target audience, so don't lose sleep over it.

    126. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      US infant morality rates are not comparable with most other countries because in our statistics we count life at beginning in the delivery room. So children that die in child birth count in our infant mortality statistics. Also we count children that die in the first couple days after birth in those stats.

      Most countries don't count the child as even alive in their statistics until they've been alive for a couple weeks.

      If you don't understand how statistics work, then you're incompetent to cite them.

      What one country means by X is not going to be what another country means by X unless they have a mutually agreed upon definition and that is rarely the case.

      In Japan for example, most unsolved murders are recorded in their statistics as accidental deaths or even suicides.

      Government statistics from all countries are frequently manipulated to make them look better for sitting politicians. The US for example does this with unemployment numbers and inflation numbers. Both of which are higher than officially reported. If you don't understand how statistics work... then you can't cite them. You're like an illiterate person presuming to cite your favorite novel. Its absurd. And because you're arrogant on top of ignorant... kindly just shut up. You are an internet idiot. If you feel the need to comment... talk to yourself. You have nothing of value to tell anyone in any discussion with more sophistication than children's cartoons.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    127. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    128. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      cite specifically what you're using as evidence. I want a brief quote and a page number.

      I'll quote this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      ""
      The 1919 Treaty of Versailles

      From 1918 to 1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to make, which would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[3]

      In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[4] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

      On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

      In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
      Gun regulation of the Third Reich

      In Nazi Germany the March 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:[5]:673-674

      Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.
      The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
      The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
      Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
      Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revisi

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    129. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Elected judges was an attempt to put the judiciary under some kind of democratic control.

      Perhaps that was even a good idea before the days of mass media. Today, judges run their campaigns on how many criminals they put away, not on how well they decide the law.

      It's a similar story with elected prosecutors. In Australia, Aaron Swartz would still be alive.

      As to grand juries... explain your problem there, I can't even anticipate what your issue is there.

      Let me put it this way: Hope that you never end up before a grand jury. It operates behind closed doors. You cannot read a transcript of proceedings. You have no right to counsel and no protection from self-incrimination. You may be compelled to testify and compelled to produce documents. And judges do not run the show; most of the time, prosecutors do.

      The running joke is that they would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor wanted to. A wrongdoer will also walk free of the prosecutor wants that, too. (Remember, prosecutors rely on election campaigns for their job; that is often a good incentive not to prosecute someone.)

      As to plea bargaining, bullshit... every legal system has that to some extent.

      The "extent" being that its scope is limited to the point where it can't be used as a tool of coercion.

      The point I'm making is that being that the US has democracy as a theoretical tool to curb malfeasance by people who wield the power of the government, but in practice it doesn't seem to work; either electors don't care, or they are persuaded to care about things which are not relevant. Australia, instead, has laws.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    130. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to judical elections, you don't know what they do actually... I can tell because you're running on a theory that is unmoored from experience.

      I live in the US and I see judical elections every few years. They're generally utterly ignored by everyone.

      Its something of a joke actually. People go to the ballot box and they see all these names and no one knows who they are... I mean you see elections for school superintendents, county accountants, and really a baffling list of people that are not actually covered in the media at all.

      When I was growing up, my dad had a tradition of taking the provisional ballot he was sent out and showing it to everyone and going through the list. These are the test ballots that they issue voters so you can make up your mind what you're going to do before you go to the ballot box... just copy what you wrote into the test ballot into the actual one.

      Anyway, he'd go through the whole thing every time he got one. So there was stuff that was easy to follow such as the governor or the congressman or the senators... then you had propositions to change state or city law, then you had bond inititives, and then there was all this crap about chiefs of police, fire marshals, judges, etc.

      And the thing is that it is really hard to know anything about these people. Who knows if chief of police X is going to be better than chief of police Y? Most people aren't going to know anything about them.

      So people often leave these portions of ballots blank.Some people will vote for someone randomly or based on whether they like their name.

      The best you could do for a really long time was just see who endorsed whom. And that would give you an idea of who was allies with whom politically and you could sort of guess that if X scumbag likes Y judge that Y judge is possibly also a scumbag. That was literally about as good as you could do.

      And in the end, the establishment pick tends to win these regardless.

      Your notion that people win these elections based on how many people they throw in jail or something is not accurate.

      Its more pathetic than that. They actually win based on whether they have the political backing of the local city or state establishment because no one else really cares.

      That's the truth and its sad. But people don't care in large part because they're not given enough information to form an opinion. Its getting better though.

      If you take your test ballot and do an internet search on each name you can find out a lot of information about them. That requires a proactive step on the part of the voter which is not reliable. But it is POSSIBLE for a voter to figure it out where as before it wasn't practical.

      As to the grand jury system... I agree it needs to be reformed. That is a sound point. I would say that the concept of it is fine. I think they just need to shift from being a legal body to being something of an investigatory body where evidence found by the jury could be later submitted for general trial.

      I don't mind the secrecy IN THAT CONTEXT. And I would point out that this is precisely how grand juries normally operate. They are very rarely tasked with actually sentencing someone. They're more used to see whether a trial should be had in the first place or to collect evidence in a very organized way so that when the trial happens it is all ready to go.

      So, I agree grand juries should not be sentencing people but should be used as a mechanism for the government to determine whether it should bring trial against people or organizations in certain circumstances. given that they would not be sentenced in those proceedings they do not need to be informed they are under investigation. The police don't need to tell you if they suspect you of something. The grand jury is effectively supposed an adjunct of that concept.

      As to the notion that you don't use plea bargaining in that way, I don't believe you. I did a little research and found that they are doing it in Canada and England in precisely that way.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    131. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, I don't see your point. I claimed that the Weimar Republic had tougher restrictions on guns than the Nazi government. What you posted said pretty much exactly that, only with more detail.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    132. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Your notion that people win these elections based on how many people they throw in jail or something [...]

      I said that they run their campaigns on that basis, not that they win on that basis. You are almost certainly correct that in most "races" there is basically no contest worth speaking of, and the electors have no clue what's going on and don't care. Nonetheless, I went through a phase a little while ago where I looked up campaign ads, and every single one was about this.

      So I think it's fair to say that when it's a fought campaign, that's what the campaign tends to be on. Whether or not it helps is another question.

      I don't mind the secrecy IN THAT CONTEXT.

      The alternative, incidentally, is committal hearings, which are mini-court trials, with all the advantages that go with it (e.g. both legal teams are present, protection from self-incrimination).

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    133. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... I'm quite clearly making the argument that had the germans not been disarmed, then the brown shirts wouldn't have been as threatening and that thus Hitler would not have been given dictatorial powers.

      As to the Nazis having looser gun laws...

      *laughs*
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Only for their supporters. They only gave guns to people they felt they could trust. For them they gave guns.

      Had the previous government been at least that clever... Hitler would have never come to power.

      Concede. You lose.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    134. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No they don't run their campaigns on that basis. Look, it is already horribly obvious that you actually don't know what you're talking about in this matter.

      The judges literally tell the voters almost nothing. To the extent they tell us anything it is "Guy's name for Judge".

      that's literally what we see. They have little plastic signs made with metal spikes on them and they either personally or have friends go around neighborhoods and ask people if they can put the signs on their lawn. Most people say no. Some say yes.

      During election season you'll see these little plastic signs stuck all over the place. Some people say yes to everything which means they get one sign from everyone which is very confusing while some take positions.

      You don't know anything about the elections of judges in the US.

      Your credibility on that point is utterly gone. Don't bring it up again. You've crossed the line from talking out of your ass to lying.

      I have a very low tolerance for lying. I live in the US. I see the elections for judges. They do no such thing.

      Show me a citation. Show me an example. In my entire life I have not seen that ONCE.

      If it ever did happen it is very unusual.

      As to grand juries, an investigation or deliberation you don't need to have the accused informed. The police don't need to tell you they suspect you of a crime or are building a case against you. That is in large part the point of a grand jury. For the police to query community leaders... which are the members of the grand jury...as to whether something or other should be pursued more deeply... and if so... how.

      The police + the grand jury is powerful because if you go into a formal trial with the full backing of the political leadership which is something grand juries abstract to to some extent you're coming down on the accused with the full weight and conviction of the state.

      That's why if you go through examples of when grand juries are held it tends to involve something very serious, something sensitive, or something the police don't want to take responsibility for doing.

      The grand jury gives it their blessing and then the prosecution and the police and come down like the hammer of god on whomever.

      Or... the grand jury can say "no... back off."

      Or the grand jury can say "you need this to go forward."

      Again, this is primarily how they are used. I agree with you to the extent that this is the ONLY way they should be used. However, in this capacity they are entirely legitimate and of no risk to the rights of the people.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    135. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The Bill of Rights specifically is a list of NEGATIVE rights where in the government is FORBIDDEN to make any law concerning certain things.

      Yes, The Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights, but it is superfluous. It gives Americans no rights they didn't already have under the Constitution. The US Constitution grants a set of limited, specific powers to government. It does not grant rights to citizens, nor does it impose specific limits on government. Citizens have all rights that aren't explicitly granted as powers to government, and government is limited to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

      As to the fact that many don't take the constitution seriously... Which segment of our political spectrum is doing that, sport?

      Primarily the Democrats; limited government is something that strongly contradicts both progressivism and social democracy. Why do you ask?

    136. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      There are no rights but natural rights. If the government is forbidden to interfere with your rights then your rights are protected.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    137. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      There are no rights but natural rights.

      I get it: for you to break out of the European theocratic tradition of limited, divinely-granted human rights is really, really hard.

    138. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about gods or theology. Your instant inpossition of an ideology on me that i have not expressed and do not share merely speaks to your own lack of mental flexibility.

      You likely think in presets. You have a little cache of stored up arguments and whenever you get into any discussion, rather than thinking, you just do a lookup call, compare the situation to one of your stored argument profiles, and then vomit a bunch of shit at people that only applies in your own mind.

      Its a main reason why I try to avoid arguments that are worn out because people like you just have stored up profiles for them. Ideally, if I do have to touch a well worn subject, I try to come at it from an unusual angle.

      It excludes all the idiots that aren't even able to think anymore. People can disagree with them... but they have to come up with a rational argument using their own little brains to do that. And right there I've excluded 90 percent of the population can't even really grasp the concepts from even participating.

      Sounds evil right?... Only its not because they're stupid and serve only to distract and cloud the issue with limitless idiocy. And then every so often... they'll get fixated on something really really dumb... and rather than concede the point, they'll get stubborn. That's the funniest. Those people that think they can hold a position just by refusing to acknowledge they're full of shit. No no... 1+1=5...

      Anyway... hit me with your best shot if you have fucking anything besides little smug cheap shots. Try. I dare you to hold that argument you made. I am begging you. Do it.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    139. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about gods or theology. Your instant inpossition of an ideology on me that i have not expressed and do not share merely speaks to your own lack of mental flexibility.

      No, I'm simply pointing out where the belief that humans have "natural rights" comes from.

      I have no idea what your actual ideology is; plenty of ideologies derive from what I called "the European theocratic tradition", including monarchy, theocracy, progressivism, fascism, socialism, and communism. You might be any one of those.

      You likely think in presets.

      No, honey, you do, and you have a limited and closed mind.

    140. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You need to login if you want a response. I assume ACs are sockpuppets, trolls, by default.

      I don't know who you are and can't let you speak for the other person. Login and repost that.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    141. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So rather than back your bullshit up, you decided to label me an "enemy" and then run away?

      Okay, chump.

      And before you presume to get upset with that comment, I'm merely claiming what is owed me. You conceded. I'm taking what is mine.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    142. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      US infant morality rates are not comparable with most other countries because...

      Of course you will provide a citation for that claim. But I won't hold my breath...

    143. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You do no research at all. You could have looked at wikipedia and it would have enlightened you but you didn't because you're a fraud:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Additionally from the same source:
      ""Aforementioned differences in measurement could play a substantial role in the disparity between the U.S. and other nations. A non-viable live birth in the U.S. could be registered as a stillbirth in similarly developed nations like Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France â" thereby avoiding the infant death classification altogether.[77] Neonatal intensive care is also more likely to be applied in the U.S. to marginally viable infants, although such interventions have been found to increase both costs and disability. A study following the implementation of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 found universal resuscitation of infants born between 20â"23 weeks increased the neonatal spending burden by 313.3 million while simultaneously decreasing quality-adjusted life years by 329.3.[78]""

      You've got nothing left, shithead.

      I win... again.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    144. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      US infant morality rates are not comparable with most other countries...

      Your definition of 'most' must be different from mine.

      aforementioned differences in measurement could...

      Your definition of 'could' must be different from mine.

      You should also read your own references:
      "The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with, and is among the best predictors of, state failure"
      "However, the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking."

      Do you even read what you write or are so frothed with rage that you feel the need to counter as quickly as possible without actually reading anything in an effort to cover your sloppy errors in logic?

      But keep going with the ad hominem, it only serves to show everyone else how little self control you have.

    145. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Unlikely? The point is that they CANNOT be compared.

      Tell you what, sparky. Exclude all infants from US records that include underweight infants or that had resuscitation. Then you can start to compare.

      So long as US records include underweight infants and infants given resuscitation and other records do not... they cannot be directly compared.

      This is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of how statistics work. In fact, I am certain you know you're full of shit here and you're just such a degenerate that you think lying is going to save yourself.

      You lost. Again. Horribly.

      You won't accept it because you're the black knight... but your fucking legs got cut off and you're little more than an object of pity and dark humor for me at this point.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    146. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Unlikely? The point is that they CANNOT be compared.

      "The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with, and is among the best predictors of, state failure" Your link, your citation. Make up your mind.

    147. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      ... yes, they're saying that Zimbabwe or similar third world countries have high rates while first world countries such as the US for example have relatively low rates.

      you only cite the US as low when you compare us against European states and as the link pointed out, the numbers are not recorded the same way and so can't be compared directly.

      What is funny is that you don't realize you've outed yourself as a liar here. Its sad... you have mistaken stubbornness with a strong argument.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    148. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions."

      Ha! You really believe that? No-one cares about that. It sort of happened once in circumstances that are unrepeatable (well, until we get easy access to the moon or sea-bed or something). They're far more worried about the what would really happen in the case of a sufficiently sized disruption: ten thousand independent militias trading bullets and self-righteous propaganda.

    149. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      you only cite the US as low when you compare us against European states and as the link pointed out

      Uh yeah, because the topic of the thread is comparing the US with Australia, not Zimbabwe
      You're a lightweight, stick to arguing with the other children because you are clearly out of your depth...

    150. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... and as cited in the link... you can't directly compare the numbers because they're not calculated the same way.

      Yes... lower numbers tend to mean things are better in that country and higher numbers tend to mean things are worse. HOWEVER... that only tells you what is going on in gross terms. That is if the numbers are really really different then that indicates there might be a problem. However if they're not that different then you have to look at various factors that are different between the way the two countries calculate these numbers. That allows you to make a more precise comparison.

      If you did that, US infant mortality numbers would have to go down.

      What you keep pathetically trying to gloss over is the fact that US numbers are higher than they would be if they were calculated the same way that France or Canada counts them.

      Your entire position at this point out patiently and obviously dishonest. What is sad is that you don't realize how fucking stupid you sound at this point.

      You're naked and you don't even realize it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    151. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      the TTP probably violates a lot of our laws and rules as well. If it is what we fear, then there are going to be some fierce court challenges.

      You might find that the only basis that exists for a challenge is that the TPP is not constitutional.

      I'd like to know what other thing your politicians have done in the US's interests that violated your rights though? Just curious.

      The most recent example is passing the data retention laws so that the movie industry can do speculative invoicing on Australians. The Free trade agreement signed over a decade ago started eroding our health care system, which is mostly free for all citizens with little benefit to Australians. I don't blame Americans themselves because from what I see they are suffering at the hands of the same, powerful, vested interests as we are.

      Politicians don't respond to that sort of thing. Politics is about leverage.

      I've founnd that addressing them directly with a letter is the single best way to have your voice heard. They may even write back. By letter I mean snail mail on paper, addressed to them. Nothing like a little one one one conversation.

      There is very little actual compromise or common ground or anything of that nature at this point.

      Which is unfortunate because co-operation and compromise is a key part of conducting a democracy.

      That's how ugly the politics have gotten in the US. Discourse is pointless. Appeals to reason are pointless. Sound and rational arguments are pointless.

      If it doesn't stop, we will destroy ourselves with our mutual loathing for each other and the system itself.

      I couldn't agree more, we have followed a similar path here in Australia. It is like the politicians have given up and now the game is how blatantly they can deceive the electorate.

      All we can do is our best to hold them accountable.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    152. Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It starts with the people. In the US, Obama has shown a greater ability to negociate with the Iranians than the Republicans and his rhetoric is more scathing of his domestic political opponents than literal dictators, mass murderers etc.

      I dont' say this to single out obama... both sides have this problem. But it shows you how f'ed up the situation is... the sides have begun to actually hate each other. Not just disagree. But hate. We can't remain a unified society if half the country hates the other half.

      Some kind of change has to come where we can come together and find a compromise that will last... or at some point we might be looking at another civil war.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualified') by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    I'm American and I could probably get about 15 million lira together if you give me a few days and will take a check.

    On second thought, I'm not very well traveled so I'd appreciate it if someone could help me with the monetary conversion. Australians accept lira, or do I have to convert to Foster's beer for payment? If so, I'll let them keep the change and just give them the entire six pack.

    That's the kind of rich I am, ladies, and there's more where that came from.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  9. Crime by quenda · · Score: 1

    It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes,

    On average, yes, but crime is a local thing. Areas of Sydney have drive-by shooting from middle-eastern crime gangs, and plenty of cities in the US are very safe.

    I don't know why rich Americans would want to leave - it is the poor people who are much better off in Australia. (unless they dream of buying a home)

    1. Re:Crime by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, large parts of Australia are a bit 19th century when it comes to race, in several places being called "Irish" is still veiwed as a pejorative.

    2. Re:Crime by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      The poor, AND middle class I would argue. Much higher median wage, four weeks minimum paid statutory leave per year, for any job (even part time), plus 10 public holidays, plus cheaper healthcare. Those factors alone would make a huge difference to the average family.

      Once you get up into the top 20% those factors cease to favour Australia over the US. And once you get into the top 5-10%, the US offers more paths to making really obscene amounts of money than Australia does.

    3. Re:Crime by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The significantly higher prices for housing, cars, fuel, food, etc. pretty much obliterate the higher median wage.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  10. New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard the elite are moving to New Zealand to flee the coming destruction of the US.

  11. Passports? How about a Falcon XB & open roads by swb · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a more enticing reward.

  12. But we don't want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your wingnut conservatives, gun-nuts or religious fruitcakes. They can stay behind.

    1. Re:But we don't want... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      So, you'll take all of the coked-out Hollywood detritus? Please?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  13. America is great if you are rich by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

    I mean, basically any western democracy where you don't need to have an army to protect your wealth is pretty awesome if you are rich. Other than tinfoil hat syndrome (e.g. James Cameron - moved to NZ) why would you limit yourself to a smaller place that you can visit, buy a mansions in, and even smuggle your dogs in on your private jet whenever you want to anyway?

    Really the debate needs to change to asking why an Aussie, who enjoys arguable a better standard of living than the median American, can't reasonably freely immigrate to the USA if they feel like it and vice versa? They could just start with a one-in one-out system so that there is no uncontrolled effect on population size, and limiting access to social services is a no brainer. That is the problem with this immigration debate, it gets so fixated on countries full of impoverished unskilled people trying to get to the richer country, yet the only thing they seem to actually change (as in the UK for example) is to make immigration harder for the educated middle-class from countries you might actually want to exchange people with.

  14. Republican Rednecks by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 0

    Perfect for Republicans Rednecks who threaten to move elsewhere to avoid gay marriages and the commie bastards taking over the government!

  15. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fast tracking immigration for the rich doesn't work. When Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada he tried it. Who has millions of dollars in disposable cash laying around? The answer came as the Asian drug cartels moved into the country. Homicide and murder rates spiked as they fought for territory. Now, many years later, they are integrated into the social fabric of the country and there is no going back. So, to sum it up -- it won't work. Don't do it.

  16. First Poop!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wooo oooo..oooo.oooot

  17. Go abroad and have some FATCA nightmares. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Though, I suppose if you're a millionaire, you can afforde the tax advisors that sort things out for you.

  18. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Australians accept lira, or do I have to convert to Foster's beer for payment?

    You do know that no Australians actually drink Foster's, right? That's the stuff we flog to foreigners.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  19. Exit tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most attractive feature could be the Australian Government helping to shield Americans from the U.S.A. exit tax.

  20. Re:Passports? How about a Falcon XB & open roa by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Or a HQ Monaro if you're a purist.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  21. What a load of horse shit by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " a country very similar to the United States... The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes"

    Australia has twice the burglary rate and a higher rape rate. Australia has a ban happy nanny-state government. Australia has a lot of race crimes against Aborigines that just aren't reported in their pop media. Australia's cost of living is almost twice what it is in the U.S. Australia still has a fucking queen.

    Australia is like the U.S. except with the fun and awesome parts removed, and instead replaced with the U.K.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Australia is like the U.S. except with the shitty and terrible parts removed,"

      There, fixed that for you.

      Having spent years living in both nations I can authoritatively say that Australia is miles ahead of the USA.

      I'd never go back to the US to live. It's a hairs breadth from Third World status.

      Funnily enough, the group of ex pats I know here also agree with me.

      Americans generally come to Australia for a visit/study/work holiday, and then go back to the USA....for a year....at which time they really see what a truly awful place the US is compared to OZ and then wham..they're on the next plane out...permanently.

      Unless you're the 1% the USA really has nothing going for it anymore. The only people who hold contrary views are the local cannon fodder who've never been further than Disneyland, or their military base.

    2. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Australia is like the U.S. except with the fun and awesome parts removed, and instead replaced with the U.K."

      Speaking as an Australian, this is not entirely untrue. The US truly does have some fun and awesome parts.

      However, Australia has almost no guns, or gun deaths. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

      Similarly, Australia has a whole lot better health care (as in health outcomes, cost effectiveness). This is probably a good thing straight up.

      And Australia has a whole bunch fewer weird Christians. This too, is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

    3. Re:What a load of horse shit by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I always thought of Australia as America with less of the bad bits. I found Australians keen to enjoy their lives - not just to work, or live in ever bigger houses, or drive ever bigger cars, but to actually enjoy the experience. I also found Aussies to be considerably more genuine that Americans - they do a certain amount of "how yer goin'?" and whatnot, but it's no where near the whole "hi, how are you today? Oh that's awesome! Okay, you have a great day - missing you already!" crap you get in the US. Also, whilst Aussies can't make a decent sausage, their food is (on the whole) less artificially altered than the US.

      One weird phenomenon of Australia is that everything is a duopoly - want broadband? Two suppliers can do it. Want a car? Well, two main makes. And so it goes on... Stuff ain't cheap either, but I guess if you're rich that's not so much of a concern.

      That said, my information is a few years out of date, and we've heard lots of stories about the Aussie government doing some really brain-dead stuff, so maybe it's not all that any more. Still, if I was handed a residency visa for the US and Australia, I'd take the Australian one. Since I'm not American, and don't have the requisite funds, or indeed inclination, it's all a bit of a moot point though.

    4. Re:What a load of horse shit by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Their Queen. Is she one? At this age? Come on, you got to be kidding.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:What a load of horse shit by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Unless you're the 1% the USA really has nothing going for it anymore. .

      But most Americans think they will soon be in the 1%. Even the guy living in that leaky trailer in Alabama making 8$ an hour.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this idiot insightful?

    7. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heyyyy I got those leaks fixed and make 10$ an hour turning wrenches

    8. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you happened to be an Aboriginal who fled to the US and made a fortune, that may be a concern. But really how many people is that? Any?

    9. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What are you, a moron? As part of the commonwealth of nations, they have a queen. That's a fact, it's not up for debate.

    10. Re:What a load of horse shit by retchdog · · Score: 1

      it reminds me of that joke.

      "Mayor, can you confirm the allegation that the number of thefts has recently been increasing?"

      "Under my term, violent assault has decreased."

      maybe it's not a very good joke. i heard it from a mathematician who was pointing out that information, in a practical sense, is not the same thing as logical deduction. at some point you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are often more important than the thought that follows (or, "garbage in, garbage out"). strictly speaking, what the politician said was just irrelevant; however, the evasion actually means that theft has probably been increasing.

      the point is: when people qualify their statements as blatantly as this, it's as close as you ever get to someone saying "i'm trying to mislead you for my own benefit."

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    11. Re:What a load of horse shit by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, Australia has almost no guns, or gun deaths. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

      You guys seem to fixate on the lack of gun deaths like it's some sort of magnificent selling point, but it just isn't a relevant factor for the vast majority of Americans.

      Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.

      I notice that the poor, who are responsible for nearly all of the gun deaths in the US, are conspicuously absent from your invitation to immigrate to Australia, by the way.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    12. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an awesome proposal. Rich conservatives (or should I say reasonable freedom-respecting people) will stay in the US. Rich smug illiberals will move to Australia, out of the US. It's a win/win!!

    13. Re:What a load of horse shit by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      How long/how long ago did you live in Australia? A lot of that stuff isn't accurate, particularly the stuff about duopolies:

      - Most urban areas have a choice of dozens of broadband providers, since there has been separation of ownership of infrastructure (physical lines) and services provided over that infrastructure (ISPs) for almost 15 years now. Some more remote areas may only have a couple of choices ... but the vast majority can purchase ADSL connections from 10+ national providers, and many also have access to cable, VDSL or fibre providers on top of that. On the contrary, it's the *US* that is characterized by broadband duopolies - in most places you have a choice of the local DSL monopoly and the local cable monopoly.

      - Cars? Huh? Australia has a range of makes available as large as anywhere else in the world. Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, BMW, Volkwagen, Nissan, Mitsubishi, many others ... and some that you'd be hard pressed to find in the US (Euro makes like Skoda etc.) Perhaps you meant the choice of Australian-made vehicles? (in which case until recently limited you to Ford, GM, and some Toyotas)

      Where Australia DOES have a stifling duopoly is in groceries: the two big supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, account for the vast majority of supermarkets in the country. Aldi is making some inroads and there are local grocers still holding in in some areas, but it's still a pretty sad state of affairs.

      You're right about prices - the cost of living is quite high (though, with the AUD only at 74 US cents now, it's a good 30% cheaper than it was a few years ago, measured in US dollar terms). But median wage is significantly higher as well, which offsets that to an extent.

    14. Re:What a load of horse shit by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Australia probably does have overall higher property crime (burglaries). I'd rather that than violent crime though.

      Rape stats are notoriously difficult to compare between countries as the definition and rates of reporting vary hugely, so I wouldn't read too much into that comparison. It's about like the comparisons of infant mortality that are often made that show the US doing very poorly - it's more to do with the fact that the US counts certain miscarriages and in-utero deaths that other countries don't.

    15. Re:What a load of horse shit by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Australia has a ban happy nanny-state government.

      You forget, this plan is targeting rich Americans, who will then become rich Australians. I'm sure that the rich in Australia are just as capable of making laws not apply to them as they are in America.

    16. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.

      Except those people who like to go to movie theaters, or schools or universities. I can visit all these places in Australia without the fear of being shot, stabbed or beaten. The restrictive guns laws and hidden weapons laws are there for a reason, we have a duty of care to each other, to protect each other from idiots or those who seem to think they have no recourse but to mass murder children.

      Enjoy your gun laws mate, buy a gun to protect yourself from the other idiots with guns. Freedom is great, but some freedoms come at a high cost.

      I'm more likely to die from a shark attack or snake bite and I'd take that any day.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

      Ref fatal attacks:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack

    17. Re:What a load of horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those people who like to go to movie theaters, or schools or universities. I can visit all these places in Australia without the fear of being shot, stabbed or beaten.

      And so to most Americans. I've been to to movie, theaters, schools, and universities thousands upon thousands of times and I, nor anybody I know, has ever experienced any sort of violence in those places.

      The mass shootings that you're referring to are tragic and we should seek to keep them happening in the future, but they're exceedingly rare events. If these sort of rare events cause that sort of anxiety for you then the problem lies more with your unreasonable fear.

  22. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    What do you drink, then?

  23. Well dohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the US is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens regardless of where they reside

    1. Re:Well dohhhhh by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Because the US is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens regardless of where they reside

      Not completely correct. There is also Eritrea, in the Horn of Africa if you couldn't recall where it was.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Any policy that is only also shared by a single other country has got to be a well thought out one, no?

  24. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by amalcolm · · Score: 1

    Don't take the piss out of Fosters, it needs all the flavour it can get!

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  25. Americans ?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfffft.......why would Australia want a bunch of lunatic Americans ?

    You're delusional.

    They can keep their squalid shithole with their crack and guns and crime and slavery and jebus.

    If the USA ever gets its act together and shows it's matured enough to start treating its people decently then MAYBE they'll have shown they're fit to emigrate en masse to a civilised nation.

    Until then though, not a chance.

  26. Toorak, yee har! by pinzvidz · · Score: 1

    Yep, just what we need... more cashed-up bogans.

  27. Our crime is irrelevant by MikeRT · · Score: 0

    Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:

    The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,

    What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.

    I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.

    But hey, if you want to outsource your basic daily safety to the state, more power to you. You have a rich tradition of subjection to royal and aristocratic authority. Who are we to judge your culture, even if it makes no sense to most of us how you can call yourselves "free citizens" when your electorate is basically at the mercy of your elites' willingness to use force?

    1. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:

      The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,

      What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.

      I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.

      Your example of being "notorious for manipulating stats" by clasifying people "near" the age of majority as children seems pretty disingenuous. Are these people younger than the age of majority or older? If they are in fact younger than that age and only "eligible to be prosecuted as adults", why would it be "manipulating stats" to clasify them as children? If they are older than the age of majority, and thus presumably not even eligible to be prosucuted as children, why wouldn't you state that?

      It is interesting that statistics can be difficult to compare when dealing with things like crime or death stats. It is also interesting how easy it is to dismiss uncomfortable conclusions. I wouldn't say we are being "mocked" by other countries and I doubt very much that anyone is "refusing" to count things - they just do their statistics different (despite our feelings of importance, most countries are too busy worrying about their own troubles to spend much energy over ours). In any case, any careful look at the state of afairs does reveal that we certainly have room for improvement. Our full term mortality rate is higher than it should be.

      http://www.livescience.com/479...

      "...the U.S. infant mortality rate for babies born at 37 weeks or later (considered "full term") was actually the highest among the 12 countries, and about twice the rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland."

      I suspect that you probably misunderstand the feelings of foreigners when thinking about the USA. While you might not care that "the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet", it is at least possible that those foreigners are appalled that we seem to think that it is acceptable that criminals and suicidal people are being killed. It can be seen to speak to the value that our society places on human lives. The USA is exeptional in many ways. Unfortunately not all of those ways are things we shold be proud of.

    2. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Devil's advocate here:

      We all have seen how murder rates have dropped in Australia. Venezuela also has had theirs drop by a significant amount, some say by a factor of 100 as per previous posts, because they passed a country-wide ban on private ownership of firearms and ammo. The US is the eighth most deadly country in the world when it comes to getting ventilated, and the first country in the world for child deaths due to school shootings (which occur on a daily basis.)

      Banning guns may take some political strength, but it is doable. Ban firearms, ammo, and gun powder. Then give BATFE enough funding to go and toss the gun runners in prison for a long time to show that things are serious and Joe Sixpack will face almost certain PMITA prison time if a bag of brass is found in his backyard. Further enforcement is easy. Make a list of names from the pro gun groups on FB and the web, then go person by person, as probable cause is established just by membership.

      Time will tell if the US can join the civilized world and get gun violence under control. Thankfully, there are philanthropists like Bloomberg and Soros who have donated money to child-saving causes like Everytown and MDA who are beating the NRA, NAGR, and the other fringe groups at every battle.

    3. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right it doesn't matter, but your wrong on why.

      Look at the annual earnings of people killed by guns in the US, they aren't making millions a year, they probably aren't even making 6 figures a year...

      Violent Crime in the US is an issue for poor people, the wealthy have their own type of crime, and it doesn't usually involve guns.

    4. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.

      Or trying to rub their standardized test score averages in our face, then you dig a bit deeper and see that they're only counting the kids who are already on the college track from an early age while our stats count everyone in the school system.

    5. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that as you polish your gun and keep the government out of your trailer park.

      Sounds like you have never even travelled to another city, yet alone another country or culture.

    6. Re:Our crime is irrelevant by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:

      The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,

      What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.

      I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.

      But hey, if you want to outsource your basic daily safety to the state, more power to you. You have a rich tradition of subjection to royal and aristocratic authority. Who are we to judge your culture, even if it makes no sense to most of us how you can call yourselves "free citizens" when your electorate is basically at the mercy of your elites' willingness to use force?

      Isn't it the gun manufacturers and retailers who have the most to gain from promulgating the fiction that you are liable to have somebody with a gun jump out from a tree and attack you, so you better arm yourself? That certainly seems to be the motivation among the most vociferous defenders of the Second Amendment on line. Not that the Second Amendment has anything to do with defending yourself against crazed juvenile delinquents.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  28. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    Australians accept lira, or do I have to convert to Foster's beer for payment?

    You do know that no Australians actually drink Foster's, right? That's the stuff we flog to foreigners.

    You drive a hard bargain. I'll send you a six pack of beer we don't drink and beer we flog to foreigners. One six pack of Foster's and one six pack of Bud Light.

    Drink the Bud first and then use the Foster's simultaneously wash away the taste of the Bud, drink something that resembles a beer, and be both humbled and amazed by the fact we can make a beer so crappy it makes you enjoy the crappy beer you guys produce. Then be thankful that I didn't send over Bud Light Lime. Yes, that's a thing and it probably tastes as bad as it sounds.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  29. Fosters isnt that bad by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    https://www.danmurphys.com.au/...

    Personally its a bit like VB but a little less B.

    Still not as good as Coopers home brew or coopers retail.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Fosters isnt that bad by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      It's bad. Seriously bad. And having lived in Australia all my life the only time I've tried Fosters was when it was on special and a good deal cheaper than beers that Australians actually drink, and I thought that I may as well give it a try. It's not as bad as Bud (yeah, not an Australian beer, just throwing it in there for comparison) or anything but it's pretty bad. Nobody I know drinks Fosters and I've never seen Fosters in an Australian's home fridge (and I do hang around all classes of Australians not just the ones who drink boutique beers). I'm not a beer snob or anything but if something tastes like shit I am not going to buy it no matter how cheap it might be. If it was cheap but acceptable then sure I'd keep it in my fridge for entertaining guests, but it's not acceptable and if I gave Fosters to people for free they'd laugh at me.

      The one thing I've never done is actually research how Fosters became known as a beer that Australians drink. I might do that now... the story has got to be interesting. I guess.

    2. Re:Fosters isnt that bad by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      The US had semi-witty "Fosters: Australian for Beer" commercials in the late 90s. I'm pretty sure that's... it.

  30. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something I have always wanted to witness: the gentrification of an entire continent. Another great victory for the One Percenters. I wonder how the middle and lower class of Australia will fade away. Meekly, I suspect. They know it's inevitable.

  31. Australian citizenship by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    I tried applying for Australian citizenship once but they turned me down as I didn't have a criminal record.

    1. Re:Australian citizenship by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Do you live in America?

      The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The State of Georgia for example was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony". However, even though this largely failed, the idea that the state began as a penal has stayed both in popular history, and local lore.[1] The British also would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland, and they would be treated similar to the convicts, except that this also included women and children.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (emphasis mine)

      Strange that they let you stay there.

  32. US does this too, but badly by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    The US has a similar plan, the EB-5 visa program, but you only need to invest $1 million to get your green card.

    I say, if we're going to let people bribe their way to the front of the immigration line, we should get top dollar for it. $15 million sounds about right, plus $2 million paid directly to the government, and used to hire more immigration workers to clear the ludicrous immigration backlog for everyone else.

    *Especially* since a good chunk of those buying green cards are Chinese businessmen and government officials fleeing corruption charges in China: if we're going to be complicit in fraud, I want a bigger piece of the action.

    Oh, and by the way, ever notice that Americans who're furious about people "skipping the line" in the immigration process never complain about this program? Seriously the only mention I can find over on Fox News is concern that Mexicans are doing it, despite the fact that for every Mexican EB-5 visa applicant, there are 200 Chinese.

    1. Re:US does this too, but badly by will_die · · Score: 1

      Really get over your hate. There only concern in that article come from a few groups having problems with the regulation, and the article is providing both sides, and if you look up those groups you find they are liberal. They even quote a Democrat on how the program is good.

    2. Re:US does this too, but badly by Shados · · Score: 1

      The issue with people "skipping in line" is that those who do are usually burdens. like those El Salvador illegal immigrants who come to sanctuary cities, and get taken in the public schools. That wouldn't be an issue, except in many of those cities, those public schools are having a hard time with cash, and in my town at least, taxes are already extremely high. It kind of sucks that the local poor who need help are told to share it with people who shouldn't be there. We can increase taxes...but if you're going to take more money from me, I'd like it to go to the people who were already legitimately there and needed it in the first place.

      If someone comes in and ponies up 1 million bucks, its a heck of a lot less likely they'll be a financial burden. They may be a cultural problem, they may be fleeding some charges..but that's true of all the immigration paths, legal or not. Not having to support them financially is one less problem to deal with.

  33. Guns by roninmagus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America. I have lived here my entire 30 years, IN THE SOUTH, and have not seen a single gun in public except in the hands of a police officer. I own guns and most of my family do as well. But I've never seen them in public.

    1. Re:Guns by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America. I have lived here my entire 30 years, IN THE SOUTH, and have not seen a single gun in public except in the hands of a police officer. I own guns and most of my family do as well. But I've never seen them in public.

      Ditto. I've lived in the South most of half a century. I own guns. I'm pretty sure everyone in my family does. Not utterly sure, though. Wouldn't terribly surprise me if one particular cousin doesn't.

      BUT, I never see them in public except in police hands or down at the range. And since the range won't come to me, I have to CHOOSE to go there in order to be in the presence of those terrifying pieces of metal/wood/plastic.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Guns by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

      Guns do nothing on their own, so calling them 'gun deaths' is disingenuous, and allows you to ignore a multitude of other relevant factors.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Guns by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      Frankly, because most non-Americans seem to get their news about America from Faux and Facebook.

    4. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's because, in most places, open carry in public isn't legal? You've got to have a CCL and keep them concealed, and if they're concealed properly, you're not going to see them.

    5. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America.

      Here, let me explain it for you with a handy infographic from the BBC

      http://oi60.tinypic.com/2pyyu1d.jpg:

    6. Re:Guns by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Generally people don't walk around brandishing them. But most of the urban gang members (illegally) carry concealed. Occasionally they off other gang members, which doesn't really bother me. Unfortunately, they usually aren't very good marksman and have to unload the entire magazine in order to hit their target at point blank range which means that innocent people end up getting killed. Personally I think that drug-dealer on drug-dealer violence, in it's abstract form, is great sport. But the implementation here is horrible.

    7. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical obfuscation.

      Gun deaths are more frequently fatal.

      The total number per capita of homicides and attempted homicides are higher in the US than any other developed nation.
      They aren't just replaced with knife attacks or other methods. The gun is immediate, powerful, requires little thought or skill to inflict harm, and ir much more likely to be fatal.

      It's a simple fact: countries without strict and cohesive gun laws experience fewer homicides (not to mention fewer mass shootings).
      The US has averaged 1 mass shooting every 3 weeks for the past 8 years.
      Australia hasn't had one since 1996.
      UK since 1994.
      Sweden had 1 in the past 10 years.

      The US homicide rate is 4.1 per 100,000.
      The next highest peer nation is the UK at 1.2.
      Australia is 0.6.
      France is 0.4.

      And it's not just crime either.
      The rate of police killing citizens is also far lower in other nations.

      Seriously, there is no excuse or other relevant factors. Even within the US we see a consistent trend: where guns are more prevalent, crime and death is higher.
      New York city is one of the safest in the nation, having a large area with unified and consistent laws, and similar state laws that further unify the law.
      This is the part where you bring up Chicago, but here's the thing: Chicago itself banned handguns, but not the outlying suburbs nor the rest of the state, who had wholly different and much laxer laws. One simply drove a few miles, out of city limits, bought a gun, and returned.

      In fact, the idea of Chicago as the murder capital despite its gun laws is largely a myth. The towns with the highest murder rates are the ones with the most guns. Dallas, New Orleans, Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, and a few dozen more are all higher on the list than Chicago.
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

    8. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you lead a sheltered life; Here are some real numbers:

      Murder rates in per 100,000 (more or less recent numbers)

      Australia - 1.1 (no guns)
      New York City - 5.1 (no guns but readily available from nearby areas)
      Atlanta, Georgia - 84 (a reasonable comparable city, Miami and New Orleans are off the charts)

      I suspect most murders are by guns in the US but you can dig up the actual numbers if you disagree.

    9. Re:Guns by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America.

      Me neither, because I haven't witnessed any such phenomenon. But maybe, if it's occasionally brought up, it has something to do that the US has by far the largest number of small firearms in civilian hands, by a factor of almost SIX ahead of the second largest owner (which is INDIA, a country four times the population of the US)?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Guns by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Most non-Americans laugh at Faux News...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Guns by quenda · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America.

      We watch American television. And the US gun homicide rate is 20 times higher than here, proving that Hollywood is accurate.

    12. Re:Guns by Wokan · · Score: 1

      I have. I was in a Peter Piper Pizza (a pizza place with children's rides and playsets for those who might not know) and there was a guy sitting across the room with his family with a pistol holstered in the open. I didn't get up and leave, but I did keep looking over to make sure there weren't any heated discussions starting.

    13. Re:Guns by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Simply because multiple mass shooting stories come out of the US every year. In most of the world such an event would be a horrifying once-in-a-decade news story, yet they are almost routine coming out of America ... enough that they are almost treated as a mundane event. A substantial portion of stories that come out of the US are about such violence or related matters. That, plus the prominence of guns (and how 'normalised' they appear to be) in many popular US television shows.

      The result is that guns are what springs to mind when one thinks of the US, because that aspect of America is unique among developed countries. You pay attention to what's different about a place, not the majority of stuff that's similar.

      Decades ago I'd say that the prevalence of fast food was the common 'US stereotype'. But now fast food chains dominate over most of the world, that's no longer unique to America.

    14. Re:Guns by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why guns always come up when non-Americans talk about America. I have lived here my entire 30 years, IN THE SOUTH, and have not seen a single gun in public except in the hands of a police officer. I own guns and most of my family do as well. But I've never seen them in public.

      Mainly due to the number of gun-nuts that pop up on any discussion about Australia and prattle on about guns (and always using incorrect information). Their loudness and vitriol does give non-Americans a very negative view of the situation.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Guns by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Gun deaths are more frequently fatal.

      Sometimes the rhetoric just gets away from you, doesn't it...

    16. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the idea of Chicago as the murder capital despite its gun laws is largely a myth.

      Nice job cherry picking numbers. Does anybody really care about the per-capita murder rate when listing the contenders for murder capital? No, they care about the total number of murders.

      If you were less concerned with pushing an anti-gun agenda, you might have noticed the following quote in your source: "Another thing that jumps out from looking at the murder-rate data: How the threshold for having the nation’s highest murder rate has fallen since the early 1990s, when the nation’s crack epidemic helped push violent-crime rates to record highs."

      Maybe it's not the guns.

      It's a simple fact: countries without strict and cohesive gun laws experience fewer homicides

      In your zeal to push your agenda, you used the wrong word. I expect you'll prefer the word "with" when you re-read your writing. But it's all a meaningless claim anyway, since there is no well defined meaning to "strict and cohesive" in the context of gun laws. Perhaps you wish to imply the paper on which the laws are written holds together well? Do we need more glue on our laws?

      Seriously, there is no excuse or other relevant factors. Even within the US we see a consistent trend: where guns are more prevalent, crime and death is higher.

      This claim, with respect to the USA, has long since been debunked by the work of economist John Lott, and many other social scientists have done follow-on work that confirms the original research. Further, there is also some excellent research by other social scientists showing a massive bias on the part of the press in not reporting situations where guns are used to deter crime. Many forms of violent crime happen at lower rates when the right to carry is recognized. The right to carry does not, however, significantly affect the most common form of violent crime, involving drug dealers shooting each other. Unfortunately, the absence of the right to carry does not affect this either.

      With respect to other countries, the claim is even more absurd. A number of countries such as Norway, New Zealand, and Switzerland all have high rates of access to firearms and historically low violent crime rates. The militia tradition in Norway and Switzerland means that they not only have firearms, they have fully automatic weapons.

      Please stop using Slashdot as a forum for spreading propaganda.

  34. Next to last place to go by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    right after the UK. Australia has gone down the facist daddy state road at high speed. It is quite amazing how UK/AUS/NZ continue to out do even the US.

  35. Re:Passports? How about a Falcon XB & open roa by swb · · Score: 1

    Well, there's that, but I always had a thing for the yellow Falcon interceptors.

  36. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    Pretty much anything but Fosters :-D

  37. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That basically means NOBODY drinks Fosters. Which brings up the question: "where does all that Fosters go?" Is there some country where they really like it? Does someone use it for some other puprose than as a tasteless beer? Maybe it's good for cleaning?

  38. Bill Fuggle is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,' " said Bill Fuggle.

    I don't have quite enough money to meet their income requirement, but I have considered emigration to Australia for those exact reasons. If my fortunes improve or their number comes down, it's an option I'd like to have open. Especially if we elect a Donald Trump-esque Repblitard as President.

    I'll get an immediate $15K per year raise by not having to shell out for health insurance if I do move.

  39. Americans stay home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, we do not want Americans living in Australia because you'll bring with you not just money but your stupid political system too. And all of the corporate bulls**t that comes with your money. And you can keep your stupid court actions (suing for unspecified damages, etc) that clog up the court system for no benefit than lawyers.

    Americans are loud, don't know how to drink, obnoxious, think the sun shines out of their ass and often are religious nut jobs the equivalent of radical Islamists declaring jihad.

    Sure, you may have a lot of money but we don't want it here because it comes with you, Americans. Take the Americans out of the USA and it would be a much nicer place.

    Stay at home America, we don't want you coming to live in Australia and polluting our society with your idiocy.

    oh, btw, your accent is like nails on a blackboard.

  40. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then be thankful that I didn't send over Bud Light Lime. Yes, that's a thing and it probably tastes as bad as it sounds.

    Probably suggests you may not have tried it yet. A really cold Bud Light Lime outdoors on a hot day is surprisingly enjoyable, and I say that as someone who usually goes for proper beers. Just ignore the fact that they pass this stuff off as "beer" and give it shot. You only live once.

  41. Rupert Murdoch's wanted by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    They already have an annoying rich person that has excessive influence. Now Australia wants rich foreigners also? How about looking for anyone that's decent to help in any way possible. Looking just for the rich is reverse lobbying and quite lazy.

  42. Why is it so hard for people to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different place are different because of the people that live in them. It's not some special property of the water that makes China different than Australia, it's the people. If you move the cause from location A to location B, then you'll move the problem from A to B. For some reason this most basic fact escapes almost everyone.

  43. Australian Jail for Technologists by BringMyShuttle · · Score: 1

    What they don't tell you: Australia's new DTCA laws jail technologists and entrepreneurs

    http://defencereport.com/australias-defence-trade-control-act-clamps-down-on-researchers/
    http://www.cla.asn.au/News/defence-pilloried-by-senate-test-pilot/
    http://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/13/cryptographers-issue-belated-complaint-about-defence-trade-controls-fix/

    No Bill of Rights in Australia, no free speech in Australia, and corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush.

  44. But first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Applicants must not giggle if someone asks them where to find a "toilet".

  45. Well two points: by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    One, from personal accounts, and from what I see in the mass media, on a whole, Australia seems to have more than a few raciest tendencies (sorry non-raciest Australians)... So that might be one reason they are targeting America, VS Asia. They didn't say it, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage (90-99%) of people in America that actually have 15 million bucks in the bank are all white anyway.

    Two, I was watching Family Feud the other day, and the American contestant was asked the question "if you had to live in any foreign country, which would it be?" The #1 answer was "Australia" so it could be that Americans already perceive it as a good destination as another reason to target the US. That said, the real funny part of that story, is that the contestant's answer was actually "'Murica!", I shit you not. As a Canadian I was a little insulted we got no mention at all... :(

  46. I'd consider moving to Australia by blackwell · · Score: 1

    I know from looking at emigration sites software developers are a demand skill there, but unless one is rich, it's hard to make that kind of move. Anyone know of any Australian companies that are hiring Americans and paying for relocation?

    1. Re:I'd consider moving to Australia by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      As someone who's done both AU-US and US-AU moves (full moves, moving entire lives/house contents/jobs etc. between the two countries), it's not really ~that~ expensive. Under $10,000 will buy you the airfare, space on a shipping container for your furniture and goods, and the relevant visa/immigration fees (depending on visa type, of course). I was self-funded for one of my moves, my company paid for the other.

      Not saying that's chump change but it's not out of reach for a middle class professional. Of course this was just me and the wife ... if you have kids then you have to consider disruption to their education and social lives etc, which makes the prospect less desirable.

  47. Can I bring my guns?? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No? Then fuck you Australia.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Can I bring my guns?? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      I think it's because they want you go buy bigger guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    2. Re:Can I bring my guns?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most men in Australia have a big penis, so guns aren't needed. My condolences to you.

  48. WHO RULES BARTERTOWN? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    Canada has something like this for a $120k investment, for the record.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  49. 'strayans are 'mercans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'strayans are the 'mercans of the south Pacific anyway. Culturally, intellectually, politically, they're indistinguishable.

    They even sound the same. And it's all Hebrew.

  50. If I was rich I'd go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck America.

  51. inflation by peter303 · · Score: 1

    These so-called rich visas used be in the $500K to $1000K range until recently. Basically you'd prove that you had the funds to live on and would not be a welfare case. However in recently years the Chinese snapped all such visas in the US and Canada and probably the rest of developed world too. The US and Canda ones are suspeended for further study.

  52. Typical Australia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why in the world would I want to invest in a country where basic human rights (speech, press, ability to own guns) aren't guaranteed by law, where drip coffee is almost non-existent, government bureaucracy at every level makes France look like an anarchist state, and everything has a self-induced tax due to an outrageously unsustainable high minimum wage?

    Seriously, Australia's at the bottom of my list when I look at places where I would want to invest in. I'll happily visit, but I'd never happily live.

  53. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True Americans are not willing to give up our right to keep and bear arms, or any other rights, so not interested.

  54. "Lots of racial crime, lots of gun crime..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you'll find Australia still beats out America when it comes to "Thought-Crime."

  55. Which Rich Americans do the want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they want the rich billionaire Mexican cartel Lords. Do they want the rich Paraguayan Americans. Or how about rich Canadians who generally live better than the USAians down south. How about the African Americans, who have never seen Africa first hand. That would be awesome if We could Export Jay-Z. Then you would no longer be able to use the term African American when referring to disadvantaged billionaire black media moguls. . You would have to use the more appropriate term 'Africans American Australian'. That would be just awesome. Just how many continents can we lump together in an effort to avoid being perceived as racist.

  56. Faultering Economy by Kplx138 · · Score: 1

    This really has nothing to with safety or kangaroos and more to do with our stagnant economy, lack of ingenuity and our governments desperate attempt to bring in more money.

    Hell we're letting the Chinese tear up perfectly good agricultural land for some stinkin' ore mine (until it poisons the water). The Indonesians don't want our beef and no one wants to swallow the bitter pill.

  57. "...it's got a lot more gun-related crimes.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pah! Must be all those weapons we Aussies have in our houses that we have locked in a safe "for our own protection". What a ridiculous idea.... I'm in emergency services and have never been to a gun related incident in all my employment.

  58. Idiot OP knows nothing about Australia by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I know my views are incomprehensible to many.

    Thats because they're wrong.

    You've got no idea how Australia is or works.

    A "bill of rights" was described by your previous president, George W Bush as "just a piece of paper" and has been ignored without consequence many times before him.

    Australia works on the premise that freedoms are not protected by paper, but people. We have our 5 fundamental freedoms (Speech, Association, Religion, Assembly and Movement) codified in the constitution but its still up to the High Court of Australia to rule on them and they do an overwhelmingly good job of it. If people stop defending freedom and rely on a piece of paper to do it for them, that piece of paper becomes as useful as those defending it.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Idiot OP knows nothing about Australia by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Provide a citation for any US president saying the constitution or the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. It doesn't exist. You opened your post to me with an ignorant remark that simply labeled you as someone that listens to propaganda but actually don't know a lot about the issue. This is not a good place to start in a discussion because it now places you in an inferior position that you are unlikely to rise out of... for many reasons.

      As to people rather than paper... then you don't have rule by law but rather rule by mob or something of that nature.

      I feel much more comfortable living in a country where my rights are enshrined in law and not one the fickle whims of the cultural gestalt.

      I can't trust what you're going to feel like tomorrow. I can trust that the law is going to be the law tomorrow.

      You say I have rights today... okay... but maybe you feel different tomorrow and suddenly I have no rights. Great. Which means my actual garentee of rights must come from power leverages on you where in I can hurt you or someone else with the power to hurt you if you try to fuck me. This is a very ancient power system you think you just invented. The system you describe is actually the oldest political system we know of... and one that favors elites because they have the leverage to protect themselves whilst everyone else is pretty much fucked.

      If you want to protect the rights of the people in general, you want rule by law. Which means pieces of paper.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Idiot OP knows nothing about Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only one of the '5 fundamental freedoms' that is in the constitution is the one on religion. The rest, haven't been protected by the consitution, but rather human rights treaties with the UN or are not at all. I don't consider we have a right to assembly, many states have past anti-protest laws, where police can tell protestors to move along. You also are required to obtain a permit to hold a 'legal' protest. Also we don't have a protected right to free speech if laws like 18c get passed and enforced.

  59. No by mjwx · · Score: 1

    No? Then fuck you Australia.

    Dearest gun nut.

    Stay the fuck out of Australia.

    Signed,
    People who are happy not having mass shootings every second week.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  60. Re:I'm mostly qualified (for low bars on 'qualifie by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Personally, I have two very nice microbreweries within easy driving distance. But since you asked, here's the top ten by market share.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  61. and most importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they have fuck you tax rates if you make any kind of decent money.

    bottomline it's a cash grab to keep the socialist nanny state afloat.

  62. So this is Plan B by whitroth · · Score: 1

    For when Bernie becomes president, the Dems-who-are-Dems, not DINOs, take control of Congress, and we tax interest and dividend income at the same rate *I* get taxed at, instead of Romney's 14%.

    Wonder whether the big companies will let their CEOs telecommute....

                  mark

  63. and .. by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    The US doesn't.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  64. Pros and Cons by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Pro: Still have muscle cars available. Shutting down local car industry, though
    Con: have to drive on the wrong side of the road. Crime against nature and Jesus.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  65. karmashock by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    trying to get time to reply to you karmashock

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.