thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 1:38pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 1:36pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 12:43pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 11:41am: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 11:31am: The only thing more dangerous than a Nazi trying to exterminate you is a communist trying to feed you. FD confusing Stalin's communism, with rule of law engendering community wellbeing. FD providing an excellent example of the crippled reasoning which follows his delusional ideology; which is why he is incapable of addressing the argument.  I was thinking of the CCP. They starved 50 million Chinese people to death by trying to feed them all equally. Were you aware of that? I know you were thinking of the CPP, given your ideologically crippled  brain, as ai noted - which is why you can't answer the substance of my posts; at least Meister (mostly) tries.... Quote: "..trying to feed them all equally. "   another example of equality before the law going wrong, like people sleeping in city streets with 'equality before the law') That is not what equality for the law means. Is there any word in the English language do you not fail to understand? You did pretty much the same thing with slavery. 'Equality before the law' -  in your deluded ideology - means everyone is equal before the law, regardless of individuals' different capacities to compete under your delusional 'natural rights'-based law. See the problem?

No. Can you explain it? You are right that it means that before the law, a short person is treated equally to a tall one, a black person equal to a white one, a man to a woman, a strong person to a weak one, a rich person equal to a poor one. I am not sure how you get from there to a problem. Were you hoping it might mean everyone is the same height when they stand in front of a judge?

Surely you jest... 'equality' before what in Australia?

Have you heard the term before Grapps?

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 1:59pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 1:38pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 1:36pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 12:43pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 11:41am: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 11:31am: The only thing more dangerous than a Nazi trying to exterminate you is a communist trying to feed you. FD confusing Stalin's communism, with rule of law engendering community wellbeing. FD providing an excellent example of the crippled reasoning which follows his delusional ideology; which is why he is incapable of addressing the argument.  I was thinking of the CCP. They starved 50 million Chinese people to death by trying to feed them all equally. Were you aware of that? I know you were thinking of the CPP, given your ideologically crippled  brain, as ai noted - which is why you can't answer the substance of my posts; at least Meister (mostly) tries.... Quote: "..trying to feed them all equally. "   another example of equality before the law going wrong, like people sleeping in city streets with 'equality before the law') That is not what equality for the law means. Is there any word in the English language do you not fail to understand? You did pretty much the same thing with slavery. 'Equality before the law' -  in your deluded ideology - means everyone is equal before the law, regardless of individuals' different capacities to compete under your delusional 'natural rights'-based law. See the problem? No. Can you explain it? You are right that it means that before the law, a short person is treated equally to a tall one, a black person equal to a white one, a man to a woman, a strong person to a weak one, a rich person equal to a poor one. I am not sure how you get from there to a problem. Were you hoping it might mean everyone is the same height when they stand in front of a judge?

I can explain it easily with a simple question. 

Do you reckon everyone in the USA gets the same equality before the Law as Humpty*** does?

*Rapist
*Swindler
*Bordering on pathological

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 3:34pm:

Have you heard the term before Grapps?

So you receive equal treatment same as Albo in a court?  What about Gina and the speeding fines?  Biiiilly  McMahon's missus got off a drink driving offence that you or I wouldn't...

now then - that 'equality under the law' as applied in Australia since the good old days of the convicts....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 4:08pm:

...Billy McMahon's missus got off a drink driving offence that you or I wouldn't...

Nope...

Lady Sonia was fined $1,000 and subjected to a good behaviour bond.

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 1:50am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 18th, 2024 at 4:08pm: ...Billy McMahon's missus got off a drink driving offence that you or I wouldn't... Nope... Lady Sonia was fined $1,000 and subjected to a good behaviour bond.

No suspension of licence like you ....she got off lightly.

Now then - when was the last time you went to court as a defendant and were treated with contempt while the most absurd notions put forward by the prosecutor were accorded the sanctity of holy writ?  Go sit in one for a day and watch carefully.  How may times will the defence be permitted to poo-poo a ridiculous statement from a witness for the pros - compared to the contempt that is allowed to drip from the pros mouth at any statement made by the defence??

Eyes and ears open... down your way things haven't changed much since the days of Ned Kelly... and people still confuse the good guys for the bad guys.... and vice versa ...

A good criminal lawyer can say the most innocuous things in a way that still manages to convey utter contempt. Like asking what did you have a for breakfast in a way that makes the jury think they had live kittens. I can see how that would make someone like Grapps angry.

Kind of beside the point though.