Craig Field

[Grapple]

It is only one aspect of freedom (personal freedoms). If you swing it around, I would be
considered a lunatic on here because I support a mining tax (and the carbon tax for that
matter). I like to think that day to day personal freedoms can be preserved whilst
still sharing resources fairly. I believe they can co exist.

... but you only have those personal freedoms within the confines of society. You're not outside of society's boundaries, you can't be left alone simply because that's how you personally define freedom. Without those rules or regulations it's anarchy, not freedom! That's the bottom line here.

 

[CrazyTiger]

... but you only have those personal freedoms within the confines of society. You're not outside of society's boundaries, you can't be left alone simply because that's how you personally define freedom. Without those rules or regulations it's anarchy, not freedom! That's the bottom line here.

I have never advocated anarchy (or living outside of society), and I'm not a conspiracy
theorist. Loudstat, Fire, Bottle etc have tried to label me as such to subvert the argument.
It is what is called an ad hominem attack.

What I am advocating for is a shift back to the middle right on personal liberties (the traditional conservative position). The liberal party has become an extreme right wing
party. As you move to either extreme (socialism on the far left and fascism on the
far right, you start losing all your personal liberties.

I've tried to demonstrate a few points by trying to get these guys interested in Americas
shift to the extreme right (condoning torture, employing a paramilitary, preventing
demonstrations, powers to summarily brand a US citizen an enemy of the state with
very serious consequences etc) as examples of what happens if you don't watch your government
carefully.

The kinds of changes that I mentioned to (can't remember his name) are really just a
return to the kinds of freedom that we always enjoyed. My recent experience regarding
where I live is an example of over policing, and it is being driven by the nanny state advocates.

 

[_Johnsy]

How would you feel if they came around to your house unannounced just to check if you there were any outstanding warrants. After all, if it catches one criminal and preventsa crime in the future who does it hurt.

See this is exactly the reason why you come across as a nut job. Polic shave intelligence, they know where you live. If it is a rental address and someone has moved on, what's the problem with the Police coming around to see if he still resides there, after all he failed to show up for court. Or don't the rules put in place by the judicial system apply to people like him. Does he consider himself above the law, exactly the same sentiment you used towards the Police force earlier? See the hypocrisy.

Yes they told me why I was being pulled up, they were on routine burglar patrol.

So now you take issue with them legally stopping people in areas that have had high rates or burglary, all because it took up 5 min of your time. If that was me I'd be glad they are being proactive and making all efforts to reduce this type of crime. But that would just make me some type of weak merkin without a backbone because I don't mind my rights being ever so slightly impinged upon for the community greater good.

So no link to a coroners report you seem to think you know enough about to make an informed opinion on, what a shock. I look forward to this, or an retraction that you went off 1/2 cocked without having all the information.

First off, as I stated in a much earlier post, a police force is a necessary evil. I have said their powers should be very carefully given or taken away.

That is exactly how it is done, it mirrors the standards the community expect. You know democracy.

I would reduce certain powers. Ideally breath testing should stay. It should be allowed,
and the bracket creep rolled back. No more asking for identity, unless you have are
intoxicated.

You want the blood alcohol limit increased, wow!!! How many fatal accidents have you attended because some knob head was pissed, had no thought for anyone else but himself, as a result killed another person driving not intoxicated. Or how many relative/friends of yours have been killed because someone wanted to drive home after drinking ?

I am guessing 0.

http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/drink-driving/
Danger increases the more you drink

0.02 to 0.05 BAC – your ability to see or locate moving lights correctly is reduced, as is your ability to judge distances. Your tendency to take risks is increased, and your ability to respond to several stimuli is decreased.

At 0.05 BAC drivers are twice (2) as likely to have a crash as before they started drinking.

0.05 to 0.08 BAC – your ability to judge distances reduces further, sensitivity to red lights is impaired, reactions are slower, and concentration span is shorter.

At 0.08 BAC drivers are five (5) times more likely to have a crash than before they started drinking. At 0.08 to 0.12 BAC – “euphoria” sets in – you overestimate your abilities, which leads you to drive recklessly, your peripheral vision is impaired (resulting in accidents due to hitting vehicles while passing), and your perception of obstacles is impaired. Drivers are up to ten (10) times more likely to have a crash.

What a great idea, increase the limit. You complete moron.

I would remove tasers and guns from police. Move the guns to specialised units like they
do in England. Tasers are nothing but an weapon built for abuse of power.

That's fie and it's an opinion. How man incidents are tasters used correctly compared to incorrectly ? Would be interesting to give this debate some perspective, something you clearly lack.

No more sniffer dogs. Decriminalise drugs for personal use.

Until drugs are illegal, won't happen. I am guessing your are at least a recreational user. Enjoy the induced psychosis in the years to come. If not then I apologise for the incorrect assumption.

I don't like the revenue raising surrounding the RMS, perviously the RTA. I would roll back
some of this. As a consequence, some lives would be lost, but in my opinion that is the
price of freedom.

You don't like getting tickets because it has a financial penalty attached to it. fair enough too, either do I. But saying that if other people are killed because someone considers their time more important than others using the road, bad luck. FMD you have sunk to an all time low. Congrats.

Yes it raises revenue, but if you don't sped/use your mobile etc, no ticket is issued. It does not raise one single cent of revenue fact. Surely even such a brilliant academic mind like yours can comprehend that simple concept.

No introduction of mandatory sentencing for the murder of a policeman. Leave it up to
the judicial system.

The judicial system does determine the sentence, they have to be found guilty of murdering a Police officer by the courts. I even spoon fed you the revenant legislation. I take it legislation is more of the devils work suppressing the good every day folk just wanting to live their lives?

That is non sensical. My idea of freedom, is being left alone to go about my own business
and not be bothered by a society that is trying to preempt every possible thing that could
ever go wrong. Others like the idea of a nanny state (a kind of benevolent Police state)
where we are made to feel safe by government through constant interference in day to
day living.

Does anyone stop you wearing thongs in the wet if you choose, Or does anyone stop you wandering the streets at 2am because it may be dangerous, Does anyone stop you plying cricket in the nets without using any pads, box etc because it may be dangerous ? No.

How exactly were you interfered with today, and yesterday, and the day before?

What a complete and utter overreaction. Your usual MO as we can all see.


In all honesty, if life in todays society is so over bearing and you just can't take it. Move to a hippy commune and live the free life man. They exist, and there are many.

 

[_Johnsy]

On a side note I do laugh at the nanny state argument.

A particular case is the new cigarette packaging laws. You see all the nanny state ads. That's fine, but it is the same nanny state who picks up the bill when they get cancer and die a long painful death in the public hospital system ?

It cuts both ways, reminds me of petulant kids who want it all their own way.

Just MO

 

[CrazyTiger]

See this is exactly the reason why you come across as a nut job. Polic shave intelligence, they know where you live. If it is a rental address and someone has moved on, what's the problem with the Police coming around to see if he still resides there, after all he failed to show up for court. Or don't the rules put in place by the judicial system apply to people like him. Does he consider himself above the law, exactly the same sentiment you used towards the Police force earlier? See the hypocrisy.


So now you take issue with them legally stopping people in areas that have had high rates or burglary, all because it took up 5 min of your time. If that was me I'd be glad they are being proactive and making all efforts to reduce this type of crime. But that would just make me some type of weak merkin without a backbone because I don't mind my rights being ever so slightly impinged upon for the community greater good.

So no link to a coroners report you seem to think you know enough about to make an informed opinion on, what a shock. I look forward to this, or an retraction that you went off 1/2 cocked without having all the information.



That is exactly how it is done, it mirrors the standards the community expect. You know democracy.



You want the blood alcohol limit increased, wow!!! How many fatal accidents have you attended because some knob head was pissed, had no thought for anyone else but himself, as a result killed another person driving not intoxicated. Or how many relative/friends of yours have been killed because someone wanted to drive home after drinking ?

I am guessing 0.

http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/drink-driving/
Danger increases the more you drink

0.02 to 0.05 BAC ? your ability to see or locate moving lights correctly is reduced, as is your ability to judge distances. Your tendency to take risks is increased, and your ability to respond to several stimuli is decreased.

At 0.05 BAC drivers are twice (2) as likely to have a crash as before they started drinking.

0.05 to 0.08 BAC ? your ability to judge distances reduces further, sensitivity to red lights is impaired, reactions are slower, and concentration span is shorter.

At 0.08 BAC drivers are five (5) times more likely to have a crash than before they started drinking. At 0.08 to 0.12 BAC ? ?euphoria? sets in ? you overestimate your abilities, which leads you to drive recklessly, your peripheral vision is impaired (resulting in accidents due to hitting vehicles while passing), and your perception of obstacles is impaired. Drivers are up to ten (10) times more likely to have a crash.

What a great idea, increase the limit. You complete moron.



That's fie and it's an opinion. How man incidents are tasters used correctly compared to incorrectly ? Would be interesting to give this debate some perspective, something you clearly lack.



Until drugs are illegal, won't happen. I am guessing your are at least a recreational user. Enjoy the induced psychosis in the years to come. If not then I apologise for the incorrect assumption.



You don't like getting tickets because it has a financial penalty attached to it. fair enough too, either do I. But saying that if other people are killed because someone considers their time more important than others using the road, bad luck. FMD you have sunk to an all time low. Congrats.

Yes it raises revenue, but if you don't sped/use your mobile etc, no ticket is issued. It does not raise one single cent of revenue fact. Surely even such a brilliant academic mind like yours can comprehend that simple concept.



The judicial system does determine the sentence, they have to be found guilty of murdering a Police officer by the courts. I even spoon fed you the revenant legislation. I take it legislation is more of the devils work suppressing the good every day folk just wanting to live their lives?




Does anyone stop you wearing thongs in the wet if you choose, Or does anyone stop you wandering the streets at 2am because it may be dangerous, Does anyone stop you plying cricket in the nets without using any pads, box etc because it may be dangerous ? No.

How exactly were you interfered with today, and yesterday, and the day before?

What a complete and utter overreaction. Your usual MO as we can all see.


In all honesty, if life in todays society is so over bearing and you just can't take it. Move to a hippy commune and live the free life man. They exist, and there are many.

I don't know what to do Johnsy. You just haven't read the thread properly.

I support personal decriminalisation of drugs, therefore I'm a drug user. This is ridiculous
stuff. I have no interest in drugs (I don't even smoke). If you want to label me, I'm
an over privileged, over educated wanker who pontificates from an ivory tower.

If you want to go back and understand whats been said and written, then I'll address your
post. You have taken far too much stuff out of context

 

[Jason Maher]

I love people who don't realise they're being trolled.

 

[CrazyTiger]

On a side note I do laugh at the nanny state argument.

A particular case is the new cigarette packaging laws. You see all the nanny state ads. That's fine, but it is the same nanny state who picks up the bill when they get cancer and die a long painful death in the public hospital system ?

It cuts both ways, reminds me of petulant kids who want it all their own way.

Just MO

Obesity has now over taken cigarette smoking as a cause of cancer/or death (can't
remember which. No doubt you want me to dig up a link, but I read it in the SMH). Do you want the government telling you what to eat too? Do you want to ban alcohol as well?

It is about where you draw the line.

 

[Grapple]

I have never advocated anarchy (or living outside of society), and I'm not a conspiracy
theorist. Loudstat, Fire, Bottle etc have tried to label me as such to subvert the argument.
It is what is called an ad hominem attack.

What I am advocating for is a shift back to the middle right on personal liberties (the traditional conservative position). The liberal party has become an extreme right wing
party. As you move to either extreme (socialism on the far left and fascism on the
far right, you start losing all your personal liberties.

I've tried to demonstrate a few points by trying to get these guys interested in Americas
shift to the extreme right (condoning torture, employing a paramilitary, preventing
demonstrations, powers to summarily brand a US citizen an enemy of the state with
very serious consequences etc) as examples of what happens if you don't watch your government
carefully.

The kinds of changes that I mentioned to (can't remember his name) are really just a
return to the kinds of freedom that we always enjoyed. My recent experience regarding
where I live is an example of over policing, and it is being driven by the nanny state advocates.

I'm not saying you're advocating anarchy... I was simply pointing out the similarities of anarchy and your definition of freedom.

Anarchy is typically met by a loss of freedom, not an increase. Which is why I was saying when you remove those social constraints or regulations in society it ultimately leads to anarchy - not freedom. You can only have those personal liberties within those constraints.

I agree with some of your basic points about less government interference, but government is made up of people - it's not some machine you have to keep an eye on. For any state problem on liberties ultimately lies with the individual being too apathetic to do anything to change it...(me included).

 

[Loudstrat]

All you know is what the Tele are reporting, based on what the police press release says. End of story. Thus you are basing what happened on 2 of the most morally corrupt organisations that exist.

Which is the point people like CT and myself are trying to make you brain dead moron.

I dont read the Tele. Whats your excuse now dickhead?

They were absolutely crammed into the car. It was unmarked, the police were plain clothed.
They could be anybody. Obviously it occurred to me it was quite likely they were police,
but then again, it could be a group of yobs.

So you dont know if they were police or not? :lol: Did they roll you for your smokes?

If you listened to Naomi Wolfs lecture you would hear her talk about hyped threats. So
many of our freedoms have been eroded by hyped threats regarding road saftey so the
government can use it as a mechanism for revenue raising. For example, what is the
national road toll-. 3000 or so. Compared with a population 22 million, neither here nor
there. So introducing 40km /hr zones to save a tiny proportion of lives to gather vast
amounts of revenue is an example of a hyped threat.

If you think about the number of people who died during WWII so they didn't have to
live under the nazi's you begin to understand the price of freedom. The removal of
breath testing, because it has been abused by the police will cost lives, but that should
be part of the cost of freedom.

You are totally f*cked in the head. You can have more freedom - who cares how many die because of it? Right?

I dunno who this Naomi Wolf nutter is, but I'd bet Sandows contract to the milk money that you both have this tattooed on your back..........

I don't like the revenue raising surrounding the RMS, perviously the RTA. I would roll back
some of this. As a consequence, some lives would be lost, but in my opinion that is the
price of freedom.

Geez I hope for your sake no forummer lives in Urunga. You really are a callous pr*ck - no wonder you cant walk up to the shops without a massive bout of paranoia about who is following you.

Actually, I reckon that tattoo is more like this:

 

[Aragorn]

Always thought Craig Field was a thug. This proves it.

 

[_Johnsy]

I don't know what to do Johnsy. You just haven't read the thread properly.

I support personal decriminalisation of drugs, therefore I'm a drug user. This is ridiculous
stuff. I have no interest in drugs (I don't even smoke). If you want to label me, I'm
an over privileged, over educated wanker who pontificates from an ivory tower.

If you want to go back and understand whats been said and written, then I'll address your
post. You have taken far too much stuff out of context

It may an idea not to be a hypocrite. Did you even read my post correctly ?

No you didn't, otherwise you would have seen this " I am guessing your are at least a recreational user. Enjoy the induced psychosis in the years to come. If not then I apologise for the incorrect assumption".

I look forward to the response to my post you promised.

 

[Jason Maher]

Now while CT may have already violated Godwin's Law in the traditional manner, thus making my point moot, I think the definition should be extended to include references to 9/11 or JFK as well as Nazis/Hitler.

 

[CrazyTiger]

I'm not saying you're advocating anarchy... I was simply pointing out the similarities of anarchy and your definition of freedom.

Anarchy is typically met by a loss of freedom, not an increase. Which is why I was saying when you remove those social constraints or regulations in society it ultimately leads to anarchy - not freedom. You can only have those personal liberties within those constraints.

I agree with some of your basic points about less government interference, but government is made up of people - it's not some machine you have to keep an eye on. For any state problem on liberties ultimately lies with the individual being too apathetic to do anything to change it...(me included).

I agree anarchy results in a loss of freedom. My definition of freedom
is pretty much the kind of freedom we enjoyed 25 years ago. If guys
like fire/johnsy listend more carefully they would understand I am
calling for a move back towards the centre, which is the safest refuge
from anarchy. I should have left out the theory, because the moment
you start talking about fascism etc people go silly. Australia
is about to move even futher to the right when Abbott gets in!

What you call "anarchy like", was what existed in Australia 25 years ago.

Yes, the government is made up of people, but it is also a machine, and it is
a machine that can run out of control.

I get the impression you are bit younger than me, because as you get older
that is when you start to notice that the freedoms you took for granted
yesterday, are really starting to disappear. It is a gradual process.
You sound like the kind of guy who is going to wake up from his apathy
one day.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

To all the good guys in his thread (you know who you are) please resist. Stop posting. Hold back. Dont respond.

Not only are you doing harm to the greater good, you are making my sides split in laughter with your endevours.

Rest.

 

[Jason Maher]

You certainly know how to be a patronising f**kwit, don't you?

 

[CrazyTiger]

Geez I hope for your sake no forummer lives in Urunga. You really are a callous pr*ck - no wonder you cant walk up to the shops without a massive bout of paranoia about who is following you.

You do make me laugh Loudy, but I have to disagree. If you are really that worried about
the miserable 500 lives (and that is being very generous) that are saved by plouging
countless millions into saving a handful of people, we could donate that money to
third world countries and save tens of thousands of lives.

What you are really saying is, the life of an Australian is more equal than that of a foreigner,
and I'm not really callous at all.

 

[CrazyTiger]

You certainly know how to be a patronising f**kwit, don't you?

I didn't mean to be patronising. He sounds like a switched on youth, who isn't some mindless
gen Y dipsh@#t. I didn't mean anything by it.

 

[veggiepatch1959]

Intent to cause Grevious Bodily Harm are the active words in the definition.

I see that the moderator deleted my post for not including a source.

here's the source for the legal definition of murder.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s18.html

Hooray!! At last, someone who has the ability to research the proper legal sources rather than rely on media and "official police" propaganda.

I am in the first stages of a law degree with the purpose of defending victims of misuse of DVOs (mainly male victims) and those with mental health and/or intellectual disabilities.

I have enjoyed various aspects of law, before and after two bouts of imprisionment as a victim of serious assault. Work that one out! Only the Queensland Police Service know that, who are currently under investigation.

 

[Fire]

"They may take our lives. But they'll never take our...FREEDOM!!!"

 

[Fire]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a "field" day with this thread.

Haw. Haw. Haw. Boom-tsh.