Ranting corner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2012, 04:30 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(25-10-2012 12:42 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Brb in 2 days.

Thanks for the warning!

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 07:35 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(25-10-2012 09:53 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 06:24 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alright exam study got boring so I'm back before 2 days, so sue me.

So I was looking into how someone would move to the US.
Fucking hell!
I'd have better bet just coming over as an illegal.
Basically, I have to marry an American, have in high demand skills and the associated degree, have a high paying job where an employer will vouch for me, own my own business (which is what I would do anyway, but the bank isn't going to lend me money so I can buy offshore businesses and investors arn't going to invest in a 21year old student), have over $1mill invested in the US, have a close relative in the US (I don't), some religious thing OR I am be a refugee and have a member of congress sponsor my citizenship with a members bill in parliament.
All with a much better chance of success if I am actually living in America to begin with. All of which could take up to 12years with no guarantee of success (so after 12years I could be deported back to NZ). Plus I'm sure there is something about NZ telling America to take it's nuclear ships and shove them up their ass in the 80's not being in my favor.
OH, there is a chance I could get a student visa, BUT I'd have to prove I can pay the high tuition fee AND living costs.

And you people wonder why you have so many illegals!!!
Ahhh.. HELLO!!



So, let's compare the immigration of the USA to something a little closer to home, Australia for example.
*Google*

"New Zealand citizens are eligible for a Special Category Visa (SCV) on arrival in Australia unless they are considered to be a Behavior Concern Non Citizen (BCNC) or a Health Concern Non Citizen (HCNC).
Special Category Visas are recorded electronically. A SCV allows the holder to remain and work in Australia indefinitely."

So the US it's 12 years with no guarantee and a lot of hoops to jump through. Australia it's a $200 one way flight ticket...


Ok, that's a little unfair. NZ and Australia have political ties that allow this.
Hmmm, what's something a little fairer to compare US immigration too.

How about Singapore. I'd love to live in Singapore.
It's warm, it's westernized despite being a South East Asian country. Good business in Singapore. The people look like they're not cunts, I think me and Singapore would get a long just fine. Though I hear it rains a lot.. that could be an issue.
*google*

Well it looks like all I need is an employer, then they give you an Employment Pass.
That's it.
And if I want citizenship...
All I have to be is a Permanent Resident for at least 2years and they give that to you too.


Seriously US, your immigration sucks balls.

It's probably easier to move to Australia since you speak the same language.

And I'm pretty sure it's not that tough to immigrate to the US. We've just asked the government to make it impossible for you to move here.

The problem with moving to Australia is that then I'll be living in Australia...

If I'm gonna do that I might as well go the whole 9 yards and move to Somalia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 03:34 AM
RE: Ranting corner
Alright team here's the plan.

For my Commercial Law exam tomorrow it's 4 25 point questions.
I need at least 50% on this exam to pass the this particular paper (which is lower then normal, usually I need at least 60% on exams).
2 questions are on stuff taught in lectures from the past 6 weeks.
1 question is on a case in the course material book (which I don't have)
1 question is on a New Zealand law case that most likely established some sort of law.

Oh and the test is open book.

So tonight I'm gonna write up notes for the case, what it's about, the parties, what the judge said, what it established, related cases and laws etc...
Then tomorrow morning I'll get up around 8 (a little sooner then my usual 1pm). I'll write up notes and study the past 6 weeks material. Associated law and that applies to situations etc..
That way the stuff that needs more memory (where as the law case is just copy and paste from notes) is fresh in the mind and I'll be able to nut out those first 2 questions.
Then that last question about the story/case thing I don't have I'll just wing it, it'll relate to the past 6 weeks material somehow so if I have time I'll just write a broad overview of everything and hope that some of it relates to said case and I'll get some marks for it.

I suspect I wont get some flashy A+ grade, but I'm not after A+ I'm after a pass, then all I have to do is pass two more papers and they wont cut off my weekly student benefit next year.

So if you'll excuse me I have to go read a summary of Hogan v Commercial Factories LtD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 03:46 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(26-10-2012 03:34 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alright team here's the plan.

For my Commercial Law exam tomorrow it's 4 25 point questions.
I need at least 50% on this exam to pass the this particular paper (which is lower then normal, usually I need at least 60% on exams).
2 questions are on stuff taught in lectures from the past 6 weeks.
1 question is on a case in the course material book (which I don't have)
1 question is on a New Zealand law case that most likely established some sort of law.

Oh and the test is open book.

So tonight I'm gonna write up notes for the case, what it's about, the parties, what the judge said, what it established, related cases and laws etc...
Then tomorrow morning I'll get up around 8 (a little sooner then my usual 1pm). I'll write up notes and study the past 6 weeks material. Associated law and that applies to situations etc..
That way the stuff that needs more memory (where as the law case is just copy and paste from notes) is fresh in the mind and I'll be able to nut out those first 2 questions.
Then that last question about the story/case thing I don't have I'll just wing it, it'll relate to the past 6 weeks material somehow so if I have time I'll just write a broad overview of everything and hope that some of it relates to said case and I'll get some marks for it.

I suspect I wont get some flashy A+ grade, but I'm not after A+ I'm after a pass, then all I have to do is pass two more papers and they wont cut off my weekly student benefit next year.

So if you'll excuse me I have to go read a summary of Hogan v Commercial Factories LtD.

Good luck, dude.

Pah! You don't need luck, you're a natural.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
26-10-2012, 03:57 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(26-10-2012 03:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Pah! You don't need luck, you're a natural.

... a natural disaster Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-10-2012, 04:15 AM
RE: Ranting corner
Thanks DLJ, got this shit in the bag.

@Morondog, *insert shady eyes Fry from Futurama here*


Reading the background on the case I gotta read. Whooooweee, this is a doosy. This is why I love law, it's like reading a good spy novel, you can't make this shit up.
This guy Murry had a son who had a business in the 80's. Murry quit his CEO job to invest in his sons business and become a director. The business wasn't doing to well and Murry ended up taking more of running of the office job. It was clear the business was failing so Murry sold his shares. A bit later the bank was like "yo dog, short your shit out" to the business, so EPM (the business) through Murry got in touch with, "Commercial" (turns out there's two businesses so the court uses commercial for short) who would basically give them a cash injection (loan). BUT, and here's where the idiocy comes into play. Commercial required security for the money, naturally, so Murry put up his own house and big ass yacht as security for his son's failing business... You can see where this is heading.
A year later Murry wants out and so leaves the business, nothing to do with it any more (I assume he retired).
2 years after that, surprise surprise, EPM defaults on payments and goes into liquidation. Commercial then comes for their money... "Hello Murry, remember us?"

Moral of the story? Don't have kids, a 20c condom could save you hundreds of thousands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 04:44 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2012 04:47 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Ranting corner
So.. What about that Donoghue case? Crazy huh? You're right, you can't make this shit up!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 04:54 AM
RE: Ranting corner
You know Donoghue v Stevenson?
The snail in the soda bottle case right? established the definition of a "neighbor" as someone who would likely (in the eyes of a reasonable person) be effected by your actions and whom doesn't have to be in your immediate area. (so ie: in this case the a neighbor for the soda company was anyone who would drink their product).

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, it's a pretty key case in tort law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
26-10-2012, 05:06 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2012 05:11 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Ranting corner
(26-10-2012 04:54 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You know Donoghue v Stevenson?
The snail in the soda bottle case right? established the definition of a "neighbor" as someone who would likely (in the eyes of a reasonable person) be effected by your actions and whom doesn't have to be in your immediate area. (so ie: in this case the a neighbor for the soda company was anyone who would drink their product).

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, it's a pretty key case in tort law.

Of course I know it, and a laugh at it!
....I'm taking a legal studies course this semester.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
26-10-2012, 05:31 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(26-10-2012 05:06 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(26-10-2012 04:54 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You know Donoghue v Stevenson?
The snail in the soda bottle case right? established the definition of a "neighbor" as someone who would likely (in the eyes of a reasonable person) be effected by your actions and whom doesn't have to be in your immediate area. (so ie: in this case the a neighbor for the soda company was anyone who would drink their product).

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, it's a pretty key case in tort law.

Of course I know it! I'm taking a legal studies course this semester. Covering both Criminal and Civil law.

Never heard of it.

Are you guys trying to tell me that someone had their snails delivered in the wrong packaging?

That's terrible.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: