"Although details and penalties vary from state to state, drinking in public places directly outside licensed premises (and also in council-designated no alcohol zones) is illegal."
Typical right-wing comment.....wrong.
In Australia, their children are allowed to have Kinder Surprise chocolates, which are banned in the US.
Where's the freedom?.
Question: What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings: In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.
Meaning: Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths.
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013
The Journal of American Medical Association
June 22, 2016
Importance Rapid-fire weapons are often used by perpetrators in mass shooting incidents. In 1996 Australia introduced major gun law reforms that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns and rifles and also initiated a program for buyback of firearms.
Conclusions and Relevance Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.
Thats fantastic. You're trying to connect Industrial Heat LLC's very poor due diligence to the completely unrelated precious metals derivatives market, which you then try to connect to the totally unrelated system of fiat money.
So they are lining up their target are they?
Why is the nuclear attack taking so long?
"...giving nuclear weapons & the money to fund them to enemies who want to destroy us."
If that has happened, why are we not under nuclear attack?
Bryant is an Australian, not an immigrant and especially not Muslim.
You already been told about using correlations to claim causality.
Dumb people make many mistakes. Only really dumb people keep making the same mistakes.
If Obama and Kerry have given nukes to enemies that chant "death to American", why aren't we under a nuclear attack?
Martin Bryant had an AR-15. So its a rifle proven to mow down plenty of citizens in a short period of time, including children trying to hide behind a tree.
"...the ultimate objective of the EU is an unelected body to control all of Europe, in effect, total tyranny far greater than NAWZI tyranny without firing a shot."
What is the evidence for this?
"So how could anyone ever have expected anything different from the private European based Federal Reserve System?"
Because of the sophisticated anti-counterfeiting systems used (holograms, multi-colored bills, embedded devices, microprinting, watermarks and inks and the 'EURion constellation' that disables modern photocopiers.
Why is it that when you search this message board for the quotation you used, only your post gets a hit?
The usual inapplicability of your responses confirms your attempt to deflect from the truth. Yes, you're right, you did lie.
This time, your usually diversionary tactic is amusing.
Your claim, which is equivalent to"an incarcerated criminal that had bad parenting can be released because its not their fault", is a lie.
"...your tard leaders say "..... it's not the terrorists' fault"
You know the climate dummy is fazed when he extends his misrepresentation to outright lies.
My post relates to the fact that we don't get poorer from a fiat money system, unless you have a combination of only money, no possessions and no earning capacity.
Let me remind you of the title post to this thread, which has yet to draw your undeviating attention.
If you search 'fraudulent ' within this message board you won't find what you claim.
You will also find that my "defense of Obamacare" is in fact the contradiction of most of your claims.
Policies that met minimum standards that were altered to accommodate mandatory inclusions were not canceled. It appeared you used statistics that had made this error.
My responses' motif centered on the policies that did get canceled: those that manifested those awful, bountiful cases for which the US health care system was infamous.
What is telling, is your apparent avoidance of the actuality that those cancellations are a good thing, which clearly suggests that you feel as though "the US health care system was a national treasure worth keeping."