Seagull posted:

unfortunate, albo could've been a really solid disappointment

BBJoey posted:

this but unironically, I'm sick of albonania

hooman posted:

Albo would be a better leader than empty suit right wing powerbroker blib blorpen.

Albo would not be the great savior of the Labor Left however, just make Labor more electable.

Labor being more electable is without a doubt a good thing.

ahmeni posted:

https://twitter.com/nswpolice/status/719412128461926400

Phew. Sorted.

Anidav posted:

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Neil Anthony Brown, QC (born 22 February 1940) is a former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Higsian posted:

If we as a society want a highly educated workforce then we need to put in the work and shoulder the risks inherent with having people take off several years to undertake that education. If we want a supply of the unemployed so business can more easily fill new positions then we need to support the unemployed. Etc. If we want things we need to actually do the stuff necessary to support those things. In this case the government took on the risk that HELP recipients will never be able to pay it back, and they need to own that, not look for ways to weasel out of their portion of the risk.

Seagull posted:

what's that, a month before they asked who was on welfare

quote:

Hey Libertycat, based on our discussions and interactions what would you guess my field of study, earning power and employment status are?

Anidav posted:

LibertyCat should factor in that young adults are extremely easy to convince that they're making the right decision. ...For the Majority of people they take up their hobby, realize there's no work, waste 4-8 years figuring it out and then heading back into the system to take up Nursing or Business, giving themselves more debt. The current education system absolutely will crush your dreams but it's designed so that it doesn't exactly warn you and makes it easy for education cabals to set up colleges with the sole purpose of convincing students that the job market isn't as brutal as it is.

Bifauxnen posted:

The thing about libertarian arguments about markets and "risks" is that it ignores all the real-world fallout of what goes on in the meantime.

Even if we accepted unquestioningly that nurses could easily earn what they're worth if they just choked back the supply for a while, and could coordinate that somehow, there would be consequences for people's health in the meantime. And the nurses would still have to earn a living somehow else in the meantime. People have to actually live their lives while all these risks and rational assessments are going on.

quote:

If you want to treat the world like a drat video game where you can just minmax your way through everything, you need to at least account for the fact that it's got permadeath, and you can't just go "lol reroll" after making the wrong choices. If we want to have a human society where people can highly specialize instead of everyone having to be subsistence farmers, we need to have systems in place to keep our specialists alive even when they are not of immediate use.

Cartoon posted:

What sort of a poo poo smear would be trying to get these guns on our streets?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-10/decision-on-adler-shotgun-ban-still-under-review/7311912

ewe2 posted:

Ok LibertyCat, this is a serious question: what are you even doing here? I'd like an honest answer, it's an honest question.

LibertyCat posted:

I also enjoy First Dog.

LibertyCat posted:

If you're old enough to vote you should be old enough to understand the concept of "conflict of interest".

LibertyCat posted:

I would argue the government should not spend money subsidizing degrees that have minimal social or economic value. We don't need that many fashion designers.

KennyTheFish posted:

Are you seriously arguing for the rational decision making of Australians?

LibertyCat posted:

Anyone who commits to 4-8 years of study without first independently assessing their prospects is an idiot.

Amoeba102 posted:

Shaun Marsh of politics.

LibertyCat posted:

Lever action shotguns have been legal to buy for decades and have not been used in crimes.

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

LibertyCat posted:

I would argue the government should not spend money subsidizing degrees that have minimal social or economic value. We don't need that many fashion designers.

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything.

The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not.

The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment.

Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt.

Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen.

This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval.

But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not.

Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him.

No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

BBJoey posted:

this is literally unreadable. my eyes just slide off the text when I even think about reading whatever this is.

EvilElmo posted:

Polling due tonight?

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

Anidav posted:

Fairfax is iirc.

Zenithe posted:

This seems unusual. Is there some kind of precedent for this of is Geelong as bad as I've heard?

Geelong Council to be sacked by Victorian Government after scathing report

Jumpingmanjim posted:

The photo kind of tells you everything you need to know.

Mithranderp posted:

In the last 500 years, the Fourth Stimpire has dominated four systems, which it has united into one starzone, Stimsis. The Fourth Stimpire has origins from the Ten Empire War in which 10 of the United Stimpires revolted against each rules. All empires except for the fourth swore freedom upon their citizens. There is no free speech in the Fourth Stimpire, and all self-controlled transportation has been made illegal without undergoing painful medical verification methods, in which arteries are severed without pain resistant, operated entirely by machines. The way they work claim to be the most hygenic and healthy way possible, but these machines often rub against pain points, causing great deals of pain to patients. The heart is then extracted from the body and placed into a glass grinding machine. Various energy centers are also dissected and replaced with dangerous transplants. After the painful, 52 hour surgical procedure, patients will then have to use a fused guidance tool, which pumps painful resistors into the body every 2 hours. The pain they have caused is so bad, the victim would freeze in a tense position. They would then collapse afterwards.

Sexual stimulation in any way within the grounds of the Fourth Stimpire is strictly prohibited, and anyone detected even touching their sexual organs will be subjected to a penectomy or if the offender was a female, they would then have a razor inserted into their ovaries. They would pump a blue solution into the womb until the stitchings burst. Offenders would also be forced to show their operated areas in public, and they would always harass and punch them to a pulp, against their will.

Otherwise, offenders would be tazed with the worst type of electricity in the systematic district, causing so much pain, the victim would scream and flail in madness. The pain would also triple every second, but no death would be incurred. This is also used in combat against enemy units, which is why all UEE forces must wear the upgraded suit to block this effect.

However, enertainment is also questionable in UEE grounds. Sporting events end with the losing team being rounded into a grinder and shredded on live television, boxing matches end with the loser having their hands removed without anasthesia, flight races would end with the losers having their arms and legs removed, then being injected with insanity, for entertainment. People are also forced into these events, by undergoing a painful 127 hour procedure which involves tweaking the muscles so they will not listen to brain commands, and then having a painful drug injected which also causes madness if the player is not sporting. This is all for entertainment, and anyone not watching any of it during sporting times and cheering for the winning team, they will be imprisoned into galactic camps.

Snuff films are also broadcast, and actors are actually murdered just for entertainment. Stealth droids also guide these forced actors into behaving exactly as the director dreams, otherwise they will be punished by being placed into a macerator and having their execution written into the film. Any film that does not feature someone being murdered will be burned and the entire crew behind it will be executed in the most grotesque way possible - vivisection.

All executions are broadcast, and anyone who misses even a millisecond, even by blinking, will be executed. All citizens must boo to the person being executed, and the family is gathered to be injected with eternators, which cause pain forever, making them immoral but feeling the pain tenfold every millisecond. They cannot pass out, but they will feel like it forever.

Conquests by this Stimpire end in the planet being razed, and all the citizens being executed in the same way as their citizens are. The planet is then destroyed and all remnants of it are removed, and any memories of it will be erased instantly from civil minds. People who are also killed are also erased from memories, and all memories of them, including toys and pictures, are destroyed.

Prisoners undergo 40,000 years of relentless and endless labor, and anyone not complying is sentenced to the eternator injection. All prisoners injected with eternators are placed into capsules and launched into far space, then the room is closed tight to ensure maximum insanity. Some prisoners are also subjected to the removal of blood, the lungs, the liver, the genitals, the skeleton, the muscles, the eyes, and even the injection of pressure. Prisoners sentenced to pressure chambers are locked in until they are inflated to a high level. The decompression is then stopped to make sure they are inflated and uncomfortable.

Children born on the 14th of July are subjected to the removal of their skeleton and an implant of a silver liquid to replace it. The nervous sysem is also injected in various parts to ensure it is five times more sensitive than the average.

Restaurants also are ordered to serve civil meat, and anyone attending must give themself up to be cooked into a grotesque meal. They are cooked alive, undergoing extreme pain, and are then subjected to industrial grinders and blenders. The Stimpire orders at least 1 million citizens to be dispatched every day, as they are afraid the population may overthrow them. But only one planet is cared for, and the rest are banned from eating, drinking, talking, using technology, touching anyone, wearing unauthorized clothes, touching buildings, or walking a centimeter out of designated routes. Civil enforcers are on every planet, and they are engineered so that they are 40 times larger than the 300 quadrillion population. At least 7 billion die every 12 hours under this rule.

Thoughts are also surveyed, and anyone who does not think anything to loving the Stimpire with more than their capabilities will be sentenced to a prison. Prisoners who are punished for this violation will meet their greatest fear, only to have it amplified so they will turn insane as they imagine it exactly as they fear it. They then undergo a painful extraction of all fluids, to be replaced by a toxin which causes permanent irritation. The unknown substance keeps the subject aging normally, except they will never die. Prisoners punished in this way are unable to be reverted, despite many efforts, and they will never be able to be disposed.

The sickening truths have been revealed only today, and invigilation teams are still investigating the truths without setting foot in the galactic space of this sickening empire.