Terrorist attack in London

@JTT,

I'm ashamed to have interjected a patriotic element when, in fact, patriotism is one of the pernicious afflictions of mankind. But I did remember to bring up manifest destiny. So, I was fair.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

What kind of frustration do you understand in this case?

His mother and father are hard-working Nigerian immigrants from an academic family in West Africa who settled in London in the early 1980s.
Former schoolfriends of Adebolajo said he was a 'bright and witty' boy who came from a devoutly Christian family. However, he is understood to have converted to Islam in around 2003.

1 Reply

@saab,

Quote:

What kind of frustration do you understand in this case?

I can't understand why you would even have to ask such a question, Saab. The UK, US poodles, have been regularly killing innocents around the world. Certainly nowhere near the numbers that the US has slaughtered but more than enough to understand that it would make these young men angry enough to retaliate.

How would his retaliation be any different from the UK/US illegal invasion of Afghanistan?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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

Setanta wrote:

You peddle the most egregious bullshit. Conservatives adhere to as much of the constitution as they approve of, and not an iota more.

Your allegation is false
and devoid of merit.

I know that we cannot cherry pick.
Offhand, I can think of no reason to desire it.

David

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

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.

This is typical of your customary anti-American spew. The majority of the framers were not slave owners. At the time of the promulgation of the our constitution, slavery was legal in the British Empire, and the slave drivers (at arms-length and by proxy) in England were a very powerful faction in the Parliament. You will probably now crow about the "abolition" of slavery in 18e7, but that only applied to the West Indies. Black Africans in Africa continued to be enslaved, and the coolies in India were either actually or virtually enslaved until well into the 20th century.

You don't even have a written constitution, nor any mechanism to amend the precedential "constitution" you people claim to have. Maggie Thatcher, for god's sake, was trying to implement a poll tax in 1990, leading to large, violent riots. Poll taxes were abolished in the United States by amendment of the constitution. That "18th century" document to which you refer has stood up pretty well, and included from the outset a mechanism for amendment--it has been amended 27 times.

You are an ignorant, petty-minded, spiteful and vituperative little ****, whose ignorance aids your chauvinistic bigotry. As usual, you just want to bash the United States, and you'll turn to any distortion in your attempt to do so.

You're pathetic.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Conservatives attempt to cherry pick all the time. The most recent, glaring example is the attempt to, again and again, introduce religion into the public sphere, despite the no establishment clause of the first amendment, ratified in 1791. You people also sedulously ignore the first clause of the second amendment, and the power over the militia granted to Congress in Article I, Section Eight which clearly gives the Congress the right to regulate Firearms. This principle was upheld in The United States versus Miller, 1939. Conservatives frequently whine about the "coddling" of criminals (despite the principle of innocent until proven guilty), whining about evidence thrown out because of illegal search and seizure (fourth amendment), or convictions overturned because of violations of due process (fifth and fourteenth amendments).

Conservatives cherry pick constitutional provisions all the time.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I know that we cannot cherry pick.
Offhand, I can think of no reason to desire it.

And yet you cherry pick all the time mostly picking the 2nd amendment while ignoring other rights and how the government is laid out in the articles.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

The majority of the framers were not slave owners.

Nevertheless they terribly compromised their "principles" in order to get what they want. And these "principles" have remained compromised right to the present day.

Quote:

On the 200th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, said that the Constitution was "defective from the start." He pointed out that the framers had left out a majority of Americans when they wrote the phrase, "We the People." While some members of the Constitutional Convention voiced "eloquent objections" to slavery, Marshall said they "consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3241

Quote:

This is typical of your customary anti-American spew.

Then comes two paragraphs of Set's anti-British spew. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Come now. Britain and the US are treated as a unit in the book of Revelation. So we are in it together. What happens in England happens in New England....

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Oh get your head out of your arse Malvolio, it's a bloody document, not an object of reverence, you sad little man.

2 Replies

@contrex,

What about how BillRM feels about a black kid being gunned down in his state for being in possession of a can of pop and a bag of sweets.

0 Replies

@neologist,

You've done a pretty good job of subjugating most of Latin America, Vietnam, The Phillipines, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc.

I was only responding to what David said about rigid fealty to the constitution. Of course our system of government is anachronistic, the main difference is that we know it is, it doesn't have the status of a religious icon.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

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.

You need a better class of neighbor. I don't know if my next door neighbor has a gun or not, but I'm not worried about him at all. Actually, I prefer that he does. The neighborhood wouldn't be worse, and might be better. If he drinks, he keeps it to himself.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I've never acted as though it were an object of reverence. I am just pointing out what an ignorant, bigoted drama queen you are.

0 Replies

@roger,

izzythepush wrote:

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.

roger wrote:

You need a better class of neighbor. I don't know if my next door neighbor has a gun or not, but I'm not worried about him at all. Actually, I prefer that he does. The neighborhood wouldn't be worse, and might be better. If he drinks, he keeps it to himself.

Agreed. I don't drink much, but more than never,
and sometimes: at home.

Before drinking at home, I don't throw my gun collection in the garbage.
I have never had any trouble with my collection; no injuries, no complaints.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

So you didn't see the disclaimer.
It's OK. I understand.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

. . .
I was only responding to what David said about rigid fealty to the constitution.

Its more like a bank clerk NOT being allowed
to help himself to scoop up some cash from the vault, on his way home.

I was bringing out the point of each citizen being alert to defeat USURPATIONS of power,
because thay rape the liberty of the Individual citizen. History shows that he is not likely to get un-raped,
if government is allowed to get away with it, in the first instance.

No one shud trust anyone,
but the most dangerous entity to trust is government.

Every citizen shud look upon government with acute distrust,
disdain, and vigilant caution against its usurpations of power.
For that purpose, we rely upon the blessed limitations on government,
some of which r found in the Bill of Rights,
which might be analogized to the the chains on Dr. Frankenstein's
monster, on his slab in the lab. When the monster (government) breaks loose,
he runs amok (e.g., the 3rd Reich, after the Reichstag fire).

I wish to see politicians commit themselves to a 5 year plan
of progressively reducing the jurisdiction of government
by a designated percentage each year, to the greater glory of Individual freedom.

Let 's bring back the personal freedom of the 18OOs.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
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.

This is typical of your customary anti-American spew. The majority of the framers were not slave owners. At the time of the promulgation of the our constitution, slavery was legal in the British Empire, and the slave drivers (at arms-length and by proxy) in England were a very powerful faction in the Parliament. You will probably now crow about the "abolition" of slavery in 18e7, but that only applied to the West Indies. Black Africans in Africa continued to be enslaved, and the coolies in India were either actually or virtually enslaved until well into the 20th century.

You don't even have a written constitution, nor any mechanism to amend the precedential "constitution" you people claim to have. Maggie Thatcher, for god's sake, was trying to implement a poll tax in 1990, leading to large, violent riots. Poll taxes were abolished in the United States by amendment of the constitution. That "18th century" document to which you refer has stood up pretty well, and included from the outset a mechanism for amendment--it has been amended 27 times.

You are an ignorant, petty-minded, spiteful and vituperative little ****, whose ignorance aids your chauvinistic bigotry. As usual, you just want to bash the United States, and you'll turn to any distortion in your attempt to do so.

You're pathetic.

What is this, the 3rd or 4th time we have agreed on something? How odd.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Oh get your head out of your arse Malvolio,
it's a bloody document, not an object of reverence . . .

Its an INSTRUMENT, not a document (and I kinda revere it, for its limitations against government).

David

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I know that we cannot cherry pick.
Offhand, I can think of no reason to desire it.

parados wrote:

And yet you cherry pick all the time mostly picking the 2nd amendment
while ignoring other rights and how the government is laid out in the articles.

As a true liberal,
u distort the meaning of cherry picking.

0 Replies

Terrorist attack in London

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know