Is your country a nanny state?

Some parts of it aren't that ridiculous but some parts of it are and I think the idea is to move the parts that aren't into being the parts that are.

I wonder why the Australian people just lay down and take it. I don't guess that I'm sure that they do I'm sure some of them do some of them even promote it because they would rather be a subject than a citizen

 

When your country is trying to dictate that you do things they feel is good for you that's exactly what a nanny state is. That's the government acting more like your mommy and I don't like that idea because I prefer freedom. It's a little government intrusion into my life as possible.

 

Is there a particular reason you want to buy a car without airbags?

 

All permits are based on construction. And I know of no city or town that will make you pay for something that is portable and fully built to begin with, at least not a shed.

5 years ago I put a shed in my back yard. I got one from Home Depot, had it transported and installed. My bill was for labor for installing, the shed, and sales taxes on the shed. No permit was needed nor required. But if I built that shed, then yes, I would have needed a permit for such a construction. Go figure.

 

Conditioning. Anyone these days that does stand up gets ridiculed at the least.

 

Weakness. If you simply don't care about the ridicule how free would you be?

They do that in my country and then I think of the revolutionary war. 17 year olds risked life and lost life for freedom but now people are afraid of being called a name?

People that funny stand up because they might be ridiculed is exactly why we are in this state.

 

Not very many have been proven true. But each case is weighed on its own merit, not guilty by association.

https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/
https://www.readersdigest.com.au/tr...nspiracy-theories-actually-turned-out-be-true

For starters, two fighters scrambled and specifically looking for flight #93. In the sequence of events, at first people thought it was an accident in which a plane crashed into the world trade center. Then the infamous video, I think ABC, showed a second plane intentionally crashing into the world trade center two minutes later. It took firefighters between 5 to 10 minutes to get there. Second, the inner workings of the Air Force do not have all fighter planes in the area on alert status. There are logistical considerations to be considered and we were not at war with anyone at that time. Furthermore, there were Arabs working in the World Trade Center, along with Jews, Americans, and other nationalities. Those passports belonged to the people who worked at the World Trade Center, not from the planes that crashed into the world trade Center. Of the 21 hijackers, all were from either Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they were from middle-class families. they did not follow the handbook on hijacked planes. They found our weaknesses and violated, after the fact, certain immigration laws that were minor. Only one did not make it on the flight and he is now in prison for life at ADX. But yes, it was international terrorism that caused this. It was tried before, in 1993, then it was attempted in Africa in 1999, we had the attack on the US Cole in December 2000 in Yemen. Our intelligence community did not connect the dots because no one was talking to one another. That problem was rectified in 2002 BTW, more or less. People may not know, but to have an explosion of that magnitude, you would need 800 people, and six months of preparation, all of whom are keeping the secret of not telling a sole. People talk when they have secrets, and will go to the WP or NYT if they even heard a whif of this. But there was also gas, and water pipes bursting as well, and that can sound like an explosion because of the fire. I would recommend read the report on the 9/11 attack. This was a blue commission report and both parties agreed to the conclusion as well as the recommendations, which is how we got the Department of Homeland Defense BTW.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/seven-resources-debunking-911-conspiracy-theories
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
https://centerforinquiry.org/video/debunking-9-11-conspiracy-theories-mick-west/
https://theconversation.com/9-11-co...-explain-how-the-twin-towers-collapsed-167353

Again, this is more fiction than factual. It is not "common sense" which can have a wide variety of permutations, definitions, and examples. It is too broad-based, too overtly generalized, and too vague to be of any useful value. Details is important here, and the nanny state lacks the necessary details.

 

That too, I don't speak for myself, it's what I observe. However, given that there was a universal trigger that affected everyone, then you'd get a revolution. Sadly most people are weak and have been conditioned to NGAF.

 

I say if he wants to ride a motorbike without a helmet, he will become the next future organ donor at his local hospital. Same with a car without airbags.

 

It is all based on the arguments or lack thereof that you present and whether you are ridiculed or not.

 

So you entertain the fake version of events? Good for you. I wonder why firefighters reported seeing the massive structural beam dripping like molten metal at a 45° angle, and then subsequently the metal structure that only the use of thermite would fit with that description, was very quickly removed off-site to China to be smelted, so it couldn't be forensically tested?. Hmm.

Common sense rules turned into policies, smoking indoors, cycling laws (wearing a helmet, lights, bell/horn).

Hmm.

 

The reality is your only 9 meals away from civil war.

People don't give a crap as long as they are slopped like good little piggies.

 

Yes give them a little to whet their appetite, but take more away when they're not looking.
Or in this case, give them a good policy, then give them several non-savioury ones to balance the status quo.

 

If it upsets comfort that'll get people active. I think the people have either too much trust in government or are to lazy to think about it

 

From what I'v experienced on this forum, the patrons and others, it's both. Far too much trust in the governments and lazy to question/think about the actual agenda(s) they push or trying to facilitate.

 

First, I am not using a fake version. This is the agree upon timeline by thousands of people, all verified with evidence and facts. As for the metal structure, that was explained in the popular mechanics article, I suggest you read that. That is their expertise and it is quite explainable using sound engineering theory and facts.

Second, just because you say it is "common sense" does not make it so. When it comes to smoking indoors, most of that, at least in the US, is based on a lawsuit by the big tobacco companies. They lost, and it was proven that smoking causes cancer. Even worse, secondhand smoke in closed spaces such as restaurants causes more cancer than those who do smoke. Third, you are violating those who don't want the smell or aftereffects of smoke, and it is a balance in government and business to allow everyone to enjoy the inside without anyone getting violated. Smoking is not a right, and your argument is now turning into the "me, me, me" argument, which is why yonkers are not well tolerated these days by your elders. And that's on you.

 

trust but verify is not in your vocabulary. Again, trust is earned, not given, and so far you have not earned that trust in any whatsoever.

 

You should be able to, if you and the manufacturer agree that you don't want them and they don't want to provide them.

Why SHOULD government mandate you have to?

 

Trading your freedoms for a bit of perceived security?

Your utopia sucks.

Keep it over there.

 

I was going to suggest same thing about riding a motorcycle sans helmet if he replies to me.

 

I would say trusting the government is based on laziness.

You really have to think for yourself it's hard to do. I would have it so much easier if I just trusted these people. By nature is skepticism so I can't.

 

Sure.

 

No, trust certainly isn't in my vocabulary. It is a virtue that sits highest on my list, higher than love. You have to earn it and maintain it, as it's not something I give away like a smile. Brake that trust that does get granted and you're forever done in me ever trusting that individual or entity. And my government has lost the trust I have granted them many decades ago.

 

Maybe, but I consider it to be that most have their blindfolds on to comprehend what the government is actually up to. The phrase such as the following comes to mind, "It's just the sign of the times". No, it's the government manipulating their status quo.

Thinking for yourself is easy. You start by questioning everything that comes out of politician's and beauracrat's mouths.

 

So everyone who was involved agreed on the same bullshit? Did they fact-check it?