http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24573877-13360,00.html
Funny, those Australians that gave up their guns are now getting their internet censored by the .gov. God save the Queen!
mike
Actually a lot of us still have our firearms.
The idea of a compulsory internet filter on all ISP’s has made me very fucking pissed though.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Actually a lot of us still have our firearms.
The idea of a compulsory internet filter on all ISP’s has made me very fucking pissed though.
[/quote]
You will need them as your Muslim population grows. You live in Dar al-Harb.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Actually a lot of us still have our firearms.
The idea of a compulsory internet filter on all ISP’s has made me very fucking pissed though.
You will need them as your Muslim population grows. You live in Dar al-Harb. [/quote]
As I told you in a previous thread, the US has proportionally more Muslims than Australia.
CAN WE PLEASE LEAVE THE GUNS AND MUSLIMS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
Now onto the topic.
It is complete bullshit.
You cant technically do it.
Our current government is a bunch of retards with no practical intelligence or skill on any of the important matters of state.
I hate Rudd. I hate Swan. They are dumbfucks.
The good news?
The Australian Public Service couldn’t implement this even if they tried.
They’ll outsource.
Hopefully I’ll get involved and earn serious coin!
Notice how I was a good boy and didn’t mention that Rudd speaks Mandarin Chinese and refer to him as Chairman Rudd or infer anything similar?
I’m too nice sometimes.
Don’t get me started on the stupid economical policies they just implemented.
$1200 to people who happen to breed?
First home buyers grant? Waste of money! (I am one who will benefit from this even).
$2400 to pensioners was not a bad idea.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Actually a lot of us still have our firearms.
The idea of a compulsory internet filter on all ISP’s has made me very fucking pissed though.
You will need them as your Muslim population grows. You live in Dar al-Harb.
As I told you in a previous thread, the US has proportionally more Muslims than Australia.
[/quote]
Yes but if the entire Ummah decided to move to the US they would only out number us by 4 to 1. If only Indonesia decided to invade Australia they would outnumber you 10-1. Because they have 200 million to your 20 million. With an army of only 50,000 it would be over quickly.
The complacency of Australians when it comes to their freedom is astounding.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Yes but if the entire Ummah decided to move to the US they would only out number us by 4 to 1. If only Indonesia decided to invade Australia they would outnumber you 10-1. Because they have 200 million to your 20 million. With an army of only 50,000 it would be over quickly.
The complacency of Australians when it comes to their freedom is astounding. [/quote]
Can we get back to the topic at hand?!
Indonesia can’t invade us that easily you moron. We have submarines to blow their ships out of the water.
We also know that they can’t land their troops easily because of our environment.
Not to bloody mention we provide them with a whole bunch of aid?
Tsunami? OUR ARMY WENT OVER AND HELPED THEM because they are too disorganised.
We are perfectly safe.
Sit back down and be quiet.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If only Indonesia decided to invade Australia they would outnumber you 10-1.
[/quote]
Not good odds for the Indonesian’s.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Yes but if the entire Ummah decided to move to the US they would only out number us by 4 to 1. If only Indonesia decided to invade Australia they would outnumber you 10-1. Because they have 200 million to your 20 million. With an army of only 50,000 it would be over quickly.
The complacency of Australians when it comes to their freedom is astounding.
Can we get back to the topic at hand?!
Indonesia can’t invade us that easily you moron. We have submarines to blow their ships out of the water.
We also know that they can’t land their troops easily because of our environment.
Not to bloody mention we provide them with a whole bunch of aid?
Tsunami? OUR ARMY WENT OVER AND HELPED THEM because they are too disorganised.
We are perfectly safe.
Sit back down and be quiet.[/quote]
Indeed.
Australia has a very small army to defend a vast area that is sparsely inhabited and full of resources. Some of your neighbors have massive populations and a dire need for Lebensraum.
But I’ll get back to the subject of government censorship of the web. It is part of the trend in the British commonwealth to move to ever greater levels of authoritarian government that started in 1997 when Britain and Australia implemented strict gun control. Since then they have been constantly incrementing into a police state.
The responses we see are typically complacent. ie “You cant technically do it”. You shouldn’t count upon today’s technical limitations to protect you in the future. Because what is technically unfeasible today could be quite doable in the future with better technology.
It is worrying to see freedom around the world under attack and so many are willing to just go along with it.
I’m not actually sure what this law will do. When they say filter, does this mean it will be blocked or material just classified as whatever and the user will have a choice.
i’m just sceptical that the journalist has got has facts right because I haven’t heard anything about this. I would assume it would be pretty big news.
I can’t see the Greens supporting this anyway so it would never get through the Senate.
I wonder if rainjack will comment in this thread?
[quote]Spry wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE LEAVE THE GUNS AND MUSLIMS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
Now onto the topic.
It is complete bullshit.
You cant technically do it.
Our current government is a bunch of retards with no practical intelligence or skill on any of the important matters of state.
I hate Rudd. I hate Swan. They are dumbfucks.
The good news?
The Australian Public Service couldn’t implement this even if they tried.
They’ll outsource.
Hopefully I’ll get involved and earn serious coin!
Notice how I was a good boy and didn’t mention that Rudd speaks Mandarin Chinese and refer to him as Chairman Rudd or infer anything similar?
I’m too nice sometimes.
Don’t get me started on the stupid economical policies they just implemented.
$1200 to people who happen to breed?
First home buyers grant? Waste of money! (I am one who will benefit from this even).
$2400 to pensioners was not a bad idea.
[/quote]
I’d like to hear what’s wrong with his policies. Please don’t say ‘because they don’t deserve it’.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I wonder if rainjack will comment in this thread?[/quote]
Didn’t I revoke your Australian Citizenship?
[quote]Spry wrote:
CAN WE PLEASE LEAVE THE GUNS AND MUSLIMS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
Now onto the topic.
It is complete bullshit.
You cant technically do it.
Our current government is a bunch of retards with no practical intelligence or skill on any of the important matters of state.
[/quote]
welcome to the party
[quote]
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I’m not actually sure what this law will do. When they say filter, does this mean it will be blocked or material just classified as whatever and the user will have a choice.
i’m just sceptical that the journalist has got has facts right because I haven’t heard anything about this. I would assume it would be pretty big news.
I can’t see the Greens supporting this anyway so it would never get through the Senate.[/quote]
The article said it is blocking technology where the government is going to act like it is your mummy and daddy by deciding what is appropriate for you to see.
It is disgusting that the government of a spposedly free country would think it is okay to limit the people from accessing information it does not like or agree with like the Chinese do.
It just keeps getting better in OZ. This is what happens when a government creates a situation where the police are superior to the commoners.
Australian authorities have disarmed an armed robbery police squad that dressed in black suits and sunglasses and regularly beat up criminals.
The Armed Offenders Squad in Victoria state modelled itself on the thugs from Quentin Tarantin’s film ‘Reservoir Dogs’.
The AOS acted as an unofficial force within the police, with members swearing allegiance to the squad and changing the police uniform to include a tie with two gold, intersecting revolvers.
A poem written by a AOS member describes “a squad of men all as one, ready to fight until the job’s done”.
When banks get robbed and policemen are shot. The hierarchy cries, ‘Who have we got’. Who can clean up this mess. Let’s call on the men from the AOS."
The poem complains of criminals lying and police being reprimanded for taking tough action, but says: “So long as there’s bad crooks, they’ll need us around, if they’re rid of us then crime will abound”.
A Office of Police Integrity report on the AOS, released this week, examined four decades of the squad’s history and found a disproportionate number of complaints against its detectives for using excessive force in arresting suspects.
In one case, a hidden camera in a police interview room filmed detectives bashing a suspect during an interview. The suspect was repeatedly slapped and kicked, pinned to the ground and hit with a telephone when he asked to call someone.
The detectives then tell the suspect not to “bleed everywhere”.
The integrity report found the AOS, disbanded in September 2006, had an elitist subculture and an “us-vs-them” mentality that led them to take the law into their own hands.
Australian police forces have historically struggled with internal corruption and rogue officers.
A report into Australia’s largest force in New South Wales state in 1997 found corruption was systematic and entrenched, with officers involved in the drugs trade and competing with criminals to commit crimes.
It said the force had “rarely been free of corruption” in its 135-year history.
AOS detectives assumed a “noble cause” doctrine where the ends justified the means and bashing a criminal was a “community service”, said the integrity report.
“Squad members became renowned for wearing black suits, white shirts, dark sunglasses and a team-issue black tie,” said the report. “The outfits imitate the costumes worn by a network of violent criminals in the film Reservoir Dogs.”
“The deliberate identification with Reservoir Dogs was reinforced when a well-known image from the film was used to advertise the squad’s annual social function, ‘Robbers Rock’.”
The report said replacing the AOS with a taskforce model had been positive.
“Not only has there been a significant reduction in complaints against detectives working in the area, but arrest and conviction rates have also improved,” it said.
But the AOS culture may still be alive within the Victorian police force.
“I think there is nothing much in a name. Call it what you will, that is not going to solve the problem,” lawyer Gary Cooke told local radio.
[quote]Spry wrote:
AndyG wrote:
I wonder if rainjack will comment in this thread?
Didn’t I revoke your Australian Citizenship?
[/quote]
Nice way of avoiding the question I asked you in the post above. You haven’t got a fucking clue.
Sifu, you missed my point. I’m not interested in what the article said. Show me the bill which proposes this law. Like I said I can’t see it getting through the Senate.
I also enjoyed the tenuous(at best) link between your story about police and the government creating a situation where commoners are inferior to police.
-
You didn’t show that the situation existed.
-
You didn’t link that situation with the story. No other country has bad cops? Geez you try and draw a long bow sometimes. Next we’ll be hearing about Rod Ansell getting murdered by the police for having guns. Never mind the fact that he was shooting at them.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Spry wrote:
Don’t get me started on the stupid economical policies they just implemented.
$1200 to people who happen to breed?
First home buyers grant? Waste of money! (I am one who will benefit from this even).
$2400 to pensioners was not a bad idea.
I’d like to hear what’s wrong with his policies. Please don’t say ‘because they don’t deserve it’.
[/quote]
Well for a start offering a boost to the first home owners grant is pointless when we have such a tight housing market. Prices will simply go up (as they have in the past). The extra $$$ for new homes is a step in the right direction but without the State governments releasing more land AND constructing the necessary infrastructure it is a half measure.
The money for pensioners was a Howardesque popularity booster to keep our growing elderly demographic on side. Some pensioners may be doing it tough but the problem is we don’t know if they are or whether this is based on popular outrage at some shitty Today-Tonight special. Furthermore Australia has had a superannuation system since 1992 and so should be looking to reduce the number of people reliant on pension, which was the whole point of Super. People who are currently under 60 should not need any pension when they retire.
Cash handouts are not the best way to deal with the current financial problems. Australia’s weak link is it’s reliance on debt to fuel a consumer economy where the majority of goods being purchased are imported.
P.s. I suspect that Rudd is planning to continue the Howard Govt policy of middle class welfare. Disappointing.