Sleeping giants and various other organisations would disagree.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
There is literally nothing else I could add to this.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
What?
It was the left through unions and organised labour that gave life to protest and changed many laws that up hold exactly what you are claiming.
In Australia there is nothing in the Constitution re freedom of speech it only exists if at all because of the high court implies it for political communication
Guess what under pins that?
Human rights protections and Australia's anti-discrimination law.
There is nothing being constrained, there is a right to voice an opinion for or against and in Australia its often the court of the Australia public that decides the issues.
In the case's of Folau and Court they lost the case going by the LGBT marriage vote.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
Leftist maths... Particularly note the hilarious correction LMAO
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
Rittenhouse found not guilty. (Great verdict!)
The lunatic left confirms they are batshyte crazy (and outright liars).
The lunatic left confirms they are batshyte crazy (and outright liars).
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
You should try writing rationally rather than always having to use a "label" to make a point.
What Rittenhouse did would not have been possible in the majority of countries in the world. Openly roaming the streets with automatic weapons is dystopian to most people, but not the batshyte crazies that think this is their right in America.
John Howard, clearly a "lefty" in your world, must have been batshyte crazy to remove most weapons from our populace.
What Rittenhouse did would not have been possible in the majority of countries in the world. Openly roaming the streets with automatic weapons is dystopian to most people, but not the batshyte crazies that think this is their right in America.
John Howard, clearly a "lefty" in your world, must have been batshyte crazy to remove most weapons from our populace.
A paedophile, a wife beater, and a felon walk into a bar.
Kyle Rittenhouse says " Shots are on me"
Too soon?
The mainstream media coverage was atrocious and devoid of facts from the case. If independent media had not filmed every movement and incident that happened, the leftist loons would have lied its way to a conviction.
Thank God for independent media organisations on the ground.
Kyle Rittenhouse says " Shots are on me"
Too soon?
The mainstream media coverage was atrocious and devoid of facts from the case. If independent media had not filmed every movement and incident that happened, the leftist loons would have lied its way to a conviction.
Thank God for independent media organisations on the ground.
Self defence was on trial.
The rest doesn't mater.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
It does in most of the world where that event was impossible.
Arguing about a level of madness is not productive.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
An untrained 17 year with a loaded AR15 on the streets being acceptable is to me a bigger issue and points to just how batshyte crazy conservative politics is in the US
It's an age old "madness". It happens in the rest of the world. And has happened in the US and no doubt will continue due to the 2nd amendment. Perhaps you mean in 'some of the world'.
States and cities failed with law enforcement. And that was due to what boiled down to populism among governors and mayors.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
This article shows why Rittenhouse's conviction was never going to happen because what he did was lawful according to statue.
By the same token, had someone been faster on the trigger and killed Rittenhouse then they too would have been able to invoke Rittenhouse's defence as they had reason to believe their life was in danger. If that's not madness then I am lost.
Dude was exceptional under the circumstances. Hence the acquittal.
Only fired at threats and did not shoot till there was a threat. He kept his gun lowered and used the firearm exactly as one should when it comes to the law.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
No, I mean most of the world.
Perhaps you can tell me about the countries that lawfully allow 17 year olds to roam the street with an automatic weapon.
Seriously?
Rittenhouse did nothing wrong according to State statute and as upheld in his verdict.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
My point exactly.
If everyone carries a gun we are all safe!
MAD was called that for the very reason, it was mad.
Switzerland is the obvious opposing end of what US probably should have looked like. 13-17 yo are highly trained at a young age.
I'd advocate this for Australia if we weren't so accepting of stupid behaviour. We could remain neutral in an increasingly hostile area.
Defence of our resources will eventually come to pass.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
So you just invented your point as most countries have laws that prevent madness.
Clive Palmer has a Party for you to join.
Shots fired...... Let's do this.
Show me where Kyle Rittenhouse was legally in the wrong?
It's madness because you don't like it.
To me it was self defence under the laws of that country.
But hey if you want to get all hysterical and emotional with no legal basis go for it.
