Terrorist attack in London

izzythepush wrote:

I hope the farmer comes home early and catches him in the sty, then he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Explain WHAT??

Oralloy expresses benevolence & magnanimity toward McTag n those he cares about -- not toward ME.

Will u explain the problem to me ?

I'll let the EDL tell you what they stand for in their own words.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYd9qbRz2fc[/youtube]

I surmise that he was referring to Moslems
trying to legally subject England to the Sharia law.

I surmise that he was referring to Moslems
trying to legally subject England to the Sharia law.

Which, despite the paranoid howling of right wing nutters, will never ever happen.

In America, it means strict n faithful adherence to the US Constitution, as distinct from liberal distortion thereof.

It's just you and some fellow travellers who equates freedom with owning a gun.
Guns don't make you any freer, and should the government really decide to crack
down on you they wouldn't make any difference at all.

As has been pointed out previously calling someone 'anti-freedom,'
may play well with the home crowd, but it's just a piece of
meaningless rhetoric that actually weakens your argument.

EDL, like all far right movements needs a hate figure,

today it's the Moslem,

in 1930s Germany it was the Jew.

David, far right means the Nazis and their ilk,
I don't need to explain the nomenclature, it's common currency.

Your interpretation of freedom is not a factual description it's your opinion.

Actually the insistence on equating guns with freedom
is a very regressive way of thinking, an 18th Century mindset.

The fact that those on A2K with the most primitive ways of thinking
concur with you shows how outdated your concept is.

You have H2OMan who is only capable of cutting and pasting other's thoughts, Gungasnake who is so scared of reasoning that he constantly churns out ridiculous dogma devoid of any thinking whatsoever. Then there's BillRM and Oralboy with extremely limited vocabularies, an inability to see things in anything other than extremes, and the slobbering prose of a lesser primate.

You're not advocating freedom, but atavism.

One of the main aspects of freedom is to be able to choose our own definition, without having a third party trying to impose their definition on us. If you were to ask for a piece of cake you wouldn't be happy if I gave you something else, then told you that what you'd asked for wasn't cake at all.
You'd be even less happy if I then labelled you as a cake hater, because you wouldn't accept my definition of cake.

Your constitution is an 18th Century document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning aristocrats.

You may think 100% fidelity to such a document is a good thing, others would say you're being anachronistic.

I prefer the freedom of knowing that my neighbours don't have guns,
especially after they've been drinking.

I strive to be correct, not to be hypocritical;
to be correct, not to be popular.

Sad thing is I also understand the terrorists' frustration

I hereby declare, on oath,

•that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

•that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

•that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

•that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

•that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

•that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

•and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

Your constitution is an 18th Century document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning aristocrats. You may think 100% fidelity to such a document is a good thing, others would say you're being anachronistic.

I prefer the freedom of knowing that my neighbours don't have guns, especially after they've been drinking.

The White Man's Burden
1899

THE UNITED STATES AND THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Here is an example of how Englishmen felt about non-white people as late as 1899. (quotes that Kipling poem)