HAPPY D-DAY, EVERYONE !

For god's sakes David!

Tomorrow is the anniversary of D Day.
Can we leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion?

I don't know how spendius triggered your hot button but every chance you get?...
Do me a favor and friggin shut up about your obsession with guns?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Are u self sufficient? I think most people are.

Of course not. And neither is anybody else.

I assume you think your cops should be ashamed for confiscating drugs and weapons. And your military for destroying poppy crops in Afghanistan.

1 Reply

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

For god's sakes David!

Tomorrow is the anniversary of D Day.
Can we leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion?

Hay, Wiseguy, whose thread is this???
U telling me what I can say ON MY OWN THREAD??????? The NERVE of some people!!!
and the anniversary is not going to do God any good.
On D-Day, the guys were fighting for the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment.
U shud be smart enuf to KNOW that. (The guy capitalizes D-Day, but not God!)

panzade wrote:

I don't know how spendius triggered your hot button but every chance you get?...

Well, if u don t know,
then READ THE THREAD and then u will KNOW. Its not hard.

panzade wrote:

Do me a favor and friggin shut up about your obsession with guns?

Go stuff your head in the garbage.

1 Reply

Ah yes . . . Mr. Civility Incarnate . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yea, u got me.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Go stuff your head in the garbage.

Ouch! That hoits!
So you think I can't ask for a short recess on your obsession because it's your thread?
me·shug·ge·neh-...look up the definition.

Quote:

The guy capitalizes D-Day, but not God

That's right. So what?
You got a problem with that?
I don't wanna hear it.

Quote:

READ THE THREAD and then u will KNOW

I live life blissfully unaware of anything spendi posts.
It would behoove you to do the same.

0 Replies

Izzy and Lordy I enjoyed your input.
Let's not forget that it was a joint British-Canadian-American invasion no matter how much this uber threadmeister natters on about the American Second Amendment.
Oh....
And don't forget. This is his thread and he controls the posts!

2 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

Are u self sufficient? I think most people are.

spendius wrote:

Of course not. And neither is anybody else.

Is that Y u had to beg us to send u guns in 1939??
(I infer that u r ashamed to answer the other questions
that I addressed to u hereinbefore, judging from the fact that u did not.)

spendius wrote:

I assume you think your cops should be ashamed for confiscating drugs and weapons.

Let 's not conflate drugs and weapons.
1. The War on Drugs stands on a foundation of hoax.
Constitutionally, government in America has no more jurisdiction
to interfere in what the citizens ingest, than does the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club.
That interference is a naked, fraudulent USURPATION of power;
i.e., the government is criminal (for raping the Constitution), not the citizens.
Enactment of the 18th Amendment was an admission that government
needed to amend the Supreme Law of the Land to get such jurisdiction.
The police have been complicit in stealing citizens' drugs.
(Note that, except in hospitals, I dont consume narcotics.)

2. In regard to weapons, I can see that if someone STABBED
a police officer, or beat him with an ax without his consent,
it wud be OK if the police officer took it away from him
and gave it to the prosecutor to use as evidence in court.
That seems reasonable.

spendius wrote:

And your military for destroying poppy crops in Afghanistan.

Yes; I agree. That is shameful, vandalism. Its a good assumption.

U know, I can understand the Queen of England when she speaks,
but I 've had a lot of trouble in figuring out what u have in mind
when u post. Maybe u can get the Queen of England to TRANSLATE
your posts for our convenience? Please tell her that I extend her
an invitation to post in A2K. Perhaps she 'd like to offer her opinions
on the Elliot Rodger matter, or assist the Chinese students (e.g., Oristar)
in their learning of English.

1 Reply

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

Izzy and Lordy I enjoyed your input.
Let's not forget that it was a joint British-Canadian-American invasion no matter how much this uber threadmeister natters on about the American Second Amendment.
Oh....
And don't forget. This is his thread and he controls the posts!

Thank you, Pan, but I should take no credit, as it was simply an interesting article that I'd spotted whilst having the first coffee of the morning. I simply copied, pasted and posted. I then just added a bit of related history, via a family member by marriage.

I almost, a-l-m-o-s-t started a new thread, because the "Happy" word in this thread title grated somewhat. Celebrate yes, remember yes....happy? I'm not easy with that word. Many thousands dead and injured should never, in my opinion, have a "happy" attached to any rememberance of that day.

I winced when I read the show and tell reply from Omsig, and had actually typed out a measured response, asking him to look up the word 'crass', but didn't press the reply button.
Spendius put in writing, albeit in his own inimitable way, what most of us were thinking, imo.

I now wish I had started another simple rememberance thread, or not bothered at all.

2 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Quote:

I now wish I had started another simple rememberance thread,

I urge you to do so...you now have 3 hours.
The whole tone of this thread is crass i agree and I'm sorry to have missed spendius's opinion; one of the downsides of ignoring someone.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

(I infer that u r ashamed to answer the other questions
that I addressed to u hereinbefore, judging from the fact that u did not.)

Not at all. They didn't seem to me to require an answer. In one case I was simply reporting what a consensus of psychiatrists say and in the other the policeman who confiscated the knife was following orders so as to avoid somebody being stabbed with it.

Have you any idea how cheap drugs would be if they were all legal? Marijuana is as cheap to produce as cabbage. I suppose cocaine and heroin might be a little dearer than sugar. If the demand was there I estimate about 8 oz. for a dollar. Glass bowls scattered around in places of entertainment with a Prick Clean franchise in the entrance hall. Magic mushrooms in every mixed-grill on request. Laudanum in baby milk-powder. (Night Nurse--"Why pay a baby-sitter when you can knock the little monsters out for 10 hours--GUARANTEED).

You do understand Capitalism don't you? The Hidden Hand. Market forces.

If gladiators can hope to win 10 million bucks by voluntarily risking their lives against another guy equally as determined with no referee would you cover that by the 18th. $50 million if it's on Prime Time TV. With an autopsy done on the loser to prove there's no faking.

I'll spare you anymore, despite your independence and self-sufficiency, but don't think I'm at a loss for words.

Guns would have to be excluded I think or it would be all over before the viewers had got settled on their sofas all popped up to ****. That would be back to 20 paces in front of the saloon. No mechanical devices. The 18th covers that.

You're calling for no referees. You have already given the rapers of the Constitution a stuffing for having the bare-faced effrontery to set themselves up as referees.

The self-sufficient man in the middle of the Pacific in a life-raft has no referee telling him what he can and can't do.

It's a schtick Dave. You know it, I know it.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

It seems to me my Lord that the most fitting memorial to those people who were killed, injured and bereaved (a knife in a mother's heart for life) would be to show that we at least learned something from the sacrifice.

The most important thing might be to tone down the belligerence and the "in your face, what you gonna do about it then" jingoistic claptrap we are getting so much of but which is so attractive to the henpecked and bosspecked and powerless.

1 Reply

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

(I infer that u r ashamed to answer the other questions
that I addressed to u hereinbefore, judging from the fact that u did not.)

spendius wrote:

Not at all. They didn't seem to me to require an answer.
In one case I was simply reporting what a consensus of psychiatrists
say and in the other the policeman who confiscated the knife was
following orders so as to avoid somebody being stabbed with it.

Orders from someone authorized to rob Englishmen of their property?
Who is that? Prince Charles ?

spendius wrote:

Have you any idea how cheap drugs would be if they were all legal?
Marijuana is as cheap to produce as cabbage. I suppose cocaine and
heroin might be a little dearer than sugar.

Yes. That sounds reasonable.

spendius wrote:

If the demand was there I estimate about 8 oz. for a dollar.
Glass bowls scattered around in places of entertainment with a Prick
Clean franchise in the entrance hall. Magic mushrooms in every
mixed-grill on request. Laudanum in baby milk-powder.

I 'd defend the right of the kid to remain un-addicted.
He is sovereign over his own body, not his parents.

spendius wrote:

(Night Nurse--"Why pay a baby-sitter when you can knock
the little monsters out for 10 hours--GUARANTEED).

That 'd subvert the right of the kid. I stand up for kids' rights.
(U failed to close your quotation marks.)

spendius wrote:

You do understand Capitalism don't you?

Yes. I admire Ludwig von Mises.

spendius wrote:

The Hidden Hand. Market forces.

Thay operate best when un-tampered.

spendius wrote:

If gladiators can hope to win 10 million bucks by voluntarily risking
their lives against another guy equally as determined with no referee
would you cover that by the 18th.

The 18th WHAT??
The 18th Amendment is the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s.
Is that what u mean??
Anyway, if thay wish to gladiate, on a voluntary basis,
I defer to their freedom.

spendius wrote:

$50 million if it's on Prime Time TV.
With an autopsy done on the loser to prove there's no faking.

Well, for those who like that sort of thing.
I think thay have shown surgery in progress; maybe autopsies.
That is not to my taste, but enjoy it, Spendius. Maybe thay have that on English television.

spendius wrote:

I'll spare you anymore, despite your independence and self-sufficiency,
but don't think I'm at a loss for words.

OK; just so u r intelligible.

spendius wrote:

Guns would have to be excluded I think or it would be all over before
the viewers had got settled on their sofas all popped up to ****.

If thay r doing that, won t it distract from your autopsies??

spendius wrote:

That would be back to 20 paces in front of the saloon.
No mechanical devices. The 18th covers that.

I suppose that's true. Bottles of alcohol r not mechanical

spendius wrote:

You're calling for no referees. You have already given the rapers of
the Constitution a stuffing for having the bare-faced effrontery
to set themselves up as referees.

Yea, we dont want too much of that.

spendius wrote:

The self-sufficient man in the middle of the Pacific in a life-raft
has no referee telling him what he can and can't do.

OK.

spendius wrote:

It's a schtick Dave. You know it, I know it.

Yes, he uses one to paddle his raft.

How did it work out with the Queen ???

Did she accept my invitation ?

4 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

"Orders from someone authorized to rob Englishmen of their property?
Who is that? Prince Charles ?......"

Sometimes, Omsig, you really are a pillock.

My Brother in Law, at the time, was about 15.

At that time in the UK, Bill Haley had started the young revolution, and the young fashions and trends included something called The Teddy Boy. Drainpipe trousers, winklepicker or crepe shoes, slicked back "Elvis" style hair (actually, I think it was called the Tony Curtis) and a propensity for laddish behaviour and violence.
They were well known for carrying flick knives and concealing razor blades in their jacket lapels.

The confiscation of a knife was routine, and done for the public's safety. Normally one would also risk being arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.

The Policeman was an ordinary bobby and probably ex services himself. He would immediately recognise a specialised knife, designed to slice or disembowel, and would have been a terrible cop if he'd have allowed a young adolescent lad to continue his journey with a thing like that in his possession.

What happened to the knife afterwards, who knows? But the actual confiscation was the right thing to do at the time. My brother in law admits to flashing it around at the time, and readily agrees that the policeman had no option.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David, forget your, (all too American,) obsession with the Royal Family. For all the pomp and circumstance, the Queen is nothing but a figurehead, she has very little power. All real/important decisions are made in the, (elected,) House Of Commons.

Most people, (unless given a day off work for some Royal anniversary or other, in which case they're incredibly patriotic,) feel about the Royal Family the same way you feel about the Post Office. It fulfils a purpose, probably best leaving alone, that's about it.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

What is wrong, isn't that the policeman confiscated the knife, but that he didn't fill out the necessary paperwork back at the station. The crime, if there is one, ( the brother in law may have gone to the wrong police station/given, perhaps inadvertently, the wrong details,) occurred AFTER the event.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

DAVID wrote:

"Orders from someone authorized to rob Englishmen of their property?
Who is that? Prince Charles ?......"

Lordyaswas wrote:

Sometimes, Omsig, you really are a pillock.

I dunno what a pillock is,
but I suspect its something bad because u sound a little mad.

Lordyaswas wrote:

My Brother in Law, at the time, was about 15.

At that time in the UK, Bill Haley had started the young revolution,
and the young fashions and trends included something called The Teddy Boy.
Drainpipe trousers, winklepicker or crepe shoes, slicked back "Elvis"
style hair (actually, I think it was called the Tony Curtis) and
a propensity for laddish behaviour and violence.
They were well known for carrying flick knives and concealing
razor blades in their jacket lapels.

Straight razors?
There was a time when Englishmen were expected to wear
their very finest swords on the King 's Birthday.

Lordyaswas wrote:

The confiscation of a knife was routine, and done for the public's safety.
Normally one would also risk being arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.

Did your citizens remain secure in their possession of DEFENSIVE weapons ?

Lordyaswas wrote:

The Policeman was an ordinary bobby and probably ex services himself.
He would immediately recognise a specialised knife, designed to slice
or disembowel, and would have been a terrible cop if he'd have
allowed a young adolescent lad to continue his journey with
a thing like that in his possession.

I am concerned about the rights of the robbery victim in this matter, Your Highness.
A person shud not be less able to defend his life because of his YOUTH.

I suggest to u, Honorable Sir, that we ALL share an equal right
to defend our respective lives. A young shoeshine boy has as much right
to defend his life from the predatory violence of man or beast,
as does a successful elderly banker.

Perhaps, u disagree.

Lordyaswas wrote:

What happened to the knife afterwards, who knows?

Presumably, the robber knows. Maybe he sold it
or he added it to his collection, or disposed of it in his discretion,
gave it to a friend, or gave it to a superior, to curry favor for his career.

Lordyaswas wrote:

But the actual confiscation was the right thing to do at the time.
My brother in law admits to flashing it around at the time,
and readily agrees that the policeman had no option.

I certainly understand that, IF he threatened violence. Is that what happened??

Incidentally, tho I did not intend to offend Your Highness
by recounting the incident of my taking my .30 caliber M-1 Carbine
to English class, public speaking, for show and tell,
I wish to point out that many M-1 Carbines were employed
by US Army officers on D-Day and thereafter, thus the incident
is relevant to the particular subject matter of this thread.

David

0 Replies

@panzade,

also remember, the Russians had 65% of Hitlers Army "tied up elsewhere"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Yes FM, the Russians helped to secure the success of D Day and so did Hitler who refused to mobilize his large reserves nearby.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

also remember, the Russians had 65% of Hitlers Army "tied up elsewhere"

Y do u imagine, that WAS, farmer??
Will u reveal unto us what the official communist position was
qua American pacifism & neutrality on June 21st, 1941 ?

Ever hear of Operation Barbarosa??

The Reds were fighting for their lives,
because their ally, the National Socialists, betrayed them
after thay split up the spoils of Poland.
Hitler was not as loyal to Roosevelt 's "Uncle Joe", as he 'd have liked.

Thank them all u want for that, farmer.
I 'm not gonna get sentimental about it. I 'll let U handle that.

David

1 Reply

HAPPY D-DAY, EVERYONE !

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know