We have units of the Australian military roaming our streets helping the police to force, ultimately at the point of gun, Australian citizens to abide by rules made up by a government who never had and never will have those rules tested or approved by parliament. Why would anyone be concerned about the civil liberties aspects that? </sarc>

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin

Dear mhaze,

Let's do a wee comparison.

Mhaze's world: “We have units of the Australian military roaming our streets helping the police to force, ultimately at the point of gun...”

The reality: “Australian Defence Force soldiers will undergo training on the weekend before beginning unarmed patrols on Monday.” BBC

That's right, UNARMED.

You really are one of those misinformation spreading, fear-mongering pillocks aren't you.

Oh and by the way, anything to say about the recent death of yet another Australian in their 30s who has died of Covid? Something you claimed they were safe from.

Dear SteeleRedux,

«Oh and by the way, anything to say about the recent death of yet another Australian in their 30s who has died of Covid?»

Yes, yet another victim of government who neither provided enough vaccines nor would allow us to import our own vaccines!

SR,

I know this will be too hard for you to follow but I'll mention it for the benefit of others.

I didn't say the military were armed. But ultimately their power to enforce these government dictates is based on the fact that they have a preponderance of force as against the ordinary citizen. Its a philosophic issue. In the end a citizen who resists the authorities sufficiently will be overwhelmed by the authority's monopoly on legitimate force..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

"Oh and by the way, anything to say about the recent death of yet another Australian in their 30s who has died of Covid?"

If you like....he had, according to the "Chief health officer Kerry Chant Berejiklian....significant underlying health conditions” and was unvaccinated."

"Something you claimed they were safe from."

Well that's not true. Lying or just a comprehension problem?

"even though the risks to an 18 year old of dying from the A-Z jab are vanishingly small, they are still significantly greater than the risking of dying of the WuFlu."

Dear mhaze,

So a non-literal and philosophical remark from you then was it?

Bollocks.

As to your

“ A healthy 18 year old is effectively safe from it” you also said: “The government has lockdowned themselves into a bind where they can’t admit that the under 50s are and always have been safe.”

That is about as straight forward as it gets.

Or was this another of your non-literal and philosophical remarks?

Seems to be getting to be a habit.

SR wrote:"Bollocks"

which, sadly, is probably the most eloquent thing he's said in the past month.

"they can’t admit that the under 50s are and always have been safe"

Still parsing every word to try to find something, eh SR? Yeah sure, when I said they were safe I meant it was impossible to get the virus. When I told my grandkids its safe to cross at the zebra crossing I also meant it was impossible for them to come to harm there. That's all sarcasm BTW.

Poor old SR. His self-esteem has taken quite a hit over the past month with his innumeracy and historic ignorance bought to the fore. So he's desperate for some vindication. But reading every word as literally as possible is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Let's see how that works. SR said the military were "UNARMED". By which he clearly meant they were amputees.