Page 5 of 5 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

23 Jan 2016, 3:18 pm

Oh, do stop playing silly buggers.

In what way have these rights been attacked? They apply only in regard to the actions of the US government. Trumps right to free speech is no more under attack were he banned from the UK for what he's said than his gun rights would be attacked if, on visiting the UK, he was told he can't bring his guns with him.

Some people in the UK put together a petition calling for Trump to be banned from the UK, which is obviously at least in part an ironic response to his own remarks about banning certain groups from the US. This in no way affects his free speech under the first amendment, but rather a consequential response to things he's said.

And then I brought up an argument commonly wheeled out in defense of gun ownership when a gun owner commits acts of mass violence, and applied it to Muslims and/or undocumented refugees. That is, that despicable acts by the few should not lead us to infringe the human rights of the many. How is this an attack on the second amendment? Unless you think despicable acts commited by a few members of a group should lead to removal of rights from the whole of that group. But that's you, not me.

If the US can find Communists and Anarchists - and, as you request, Muslims - to be detrimental to the way of life under the US constitution, so the UK government can find Trump's presence to be so to life in the UK and ban him (of course, they haven't, and have expressed no desire to do so).

Trump is largely a laughing stock in the UK (again, his name is a slang term for 'fart', and half the time his face looks, as Charlie Brooker put it, like someone in the middle of a difficult bowel movement) and has made himself unpopular with many people over his actions and words in Scotland. That's the background to this petition.

Quote:
It is not about Trump saying he would do background checks before allowing people in, it is about him saying he will totally destroy ISIS.


Well, that shut me up. I'm surprised no-one else has thought of that yet.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Jan 2016, 3:34 pm

Who attacked your First Amendment rights?

The jurisdiction of the First Amendment is the US. Non-citizens don't have rights of the jurisdiction.

So far the only people having a "hissy fit" are those responding to this. Storm in a teacup.

You have just as many SJWs asking for similar stupid things.

Banning orders, be they in the US or UK, have nothing to do with First Amendment, as they don't apply to citizens.

I have met people who were denied entry the US due to their alleged political beliefs. At the height of the cold war this was not that uncommon.

The effectively did it to Charlie Chaplin in the 50s.

This is the country that brought you COINTELPRO and the McCarthy witch trials.

In fairness there are examples of similar in the UK such as the Metropolitan Police Service's Special Demonstration Squad which carried on operating till the 2008 and had ties to Mi5. This is despite the fact that investigating "subversion" was effectively banned by the Security Service Act 1989.

The point is the rights can't just exist on paper. Judge a country on its record. So people can bang on about the Constitution till the cows come home, it doesn't mean jot if it is not enforced.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Jan 2016, 3:47 pm

pluto wrote:
You have also occupied the following countries,whether via military or CIA and in some cases intervened in
election processes,mostly to support dictators or anti-communists :

Mexico,Nicaragua,Cuba,Phillippines,Hawaii,Honduras,Panama,Dominican Republic,Korea,Iran,Congo,Laos,Brazil,
Vietnam,Indonesia,Cambodia,Chile,Angola,Afghanistan,Iraq.


I lived in Angola during the civil war in the 90s. The proxy war between USSR and US prolonged the war by at least a decade. 500,000 civilians were killed. In the failed 1992 election year alone 120,000 people were killed.

It took the US so long to work out the Savimbi was not a good guy. It should have been obvious from the start.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

23 Jan 2016, 4:02 pm

pluto wrote:
Inventor wrote:
We did not have Empires, occupy other people's countries for hundreds of years, selling protection and opium.

Besides, we have some remedial work to do, explaining that overthrowing the government by violence, and replacing the legal code by force, are not acceptable religious practices.
Also, tampering with our free and fair domestic elections should earn a lifetime ban from coming here, to any country that does.

Do we care about who is the Prime Minister of the Failed Empire Theme Park and Beer Museum?


The US does actually have an Empire,albeit on a smaller scale - Puerto Rico,Guam,Mariana,Samoa,Virgin Islands.
You have also occupied the following countries,whether via military or CIA and in some cases intervened in
election processes,mostly to support dictators or anti-communists :

Mexico,Nicaragua,Cuba,Phillippines,Hawaii,Honduras,Panama,Dominican Republic,Korea,Iran,Congo,Laos,Brazil,
Vietnam,Indonesia,Cambodia,Chile,Angola,Afghanistan,Iraq.

I'm not saying Britain's record compares favourably but the idea that either of our countries are paragons of virtue
is slightly self-delusional.


We are a long way past slightly self-delusional. I am still protesting Farley Mowat being refused entry to the United States from Canada, because in, People of the Deer, he was seen as being sympathetic to First Nations.

Ban Trump, welcome home Jihadi John! MI5 has many agents in ISIS, and Trump is going to kill them all.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Jan 2016, 4:19 pm

Inventor wrote:
Ban Trump, welcome home Jihadi John! MI5 has many agents in ISIS, and Trump is going to kill them all.


Mi5 is a domestic security force.

Security services don't tend to have agents they have officers and handlers. They run agents and they aren't in the organisation for obvious security reasons.

CIA or Mi6 aren't going to just walk into a group like ISIS, it doesn't work like that.

The most helpful security service in terms of infiltrating groups like former Baathist and Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq is the Kurdish security services. They have set up extensive networks.

The Kurds were mostly responsible for tracking down Saddam Hussein.



AR15000
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Jan 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Right behind you

25 Jan 2016, 12:37 pm

Raptor wrote:
It would be a dumb idea to ban him.

- For the time being, it will only further solidify the far right's approval of him.

- In the very unlikely event that he does become POTUS they will have pre-packed adversary of thier own making to deal with. Sure, he'll say let bygones be bygones in front of the camera but unofficially he'll carry the grudge for the next 4-8 years.


It's not as unlikely as you think. And far more likely than Uncle Ben Carson or Teddy Cruz getting elected POTUS!

Trump is a rabble rouser. He really isn't gonna be as bad as naysayers and the left seems to think. He says outrageous things to get attention and put himself in the spotlight ant it's working. In more ways than one, Trump is very much like Ronald Reagan.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Jan 2016, 1:20 pm

This is quite amusing...a group of Englishmen telling US we shouldn't be offended at their actions....as though THEY should be the ones to tell us how we should behave. This is somehow a typical English attitude...as though we've been made the colony and are in need of their superior direction. But start to bring up how they starved the Irish or slaughtered folks in India while pushing heroin, then suddenly memories fade and moral superiority is saved.

To be fair there are some people who immediately "fess up" to their heir's dastardly deeds but insist in trying to take the moral high ground, while thousands are shut out and congregate at the French end of the "chunnel" begging, and sometimes dying for admittance (at least according to our TV) and at the same time tell us Donald Trump is inhumane because he suggests stopping the open flow of Muslims to our country, and then in fine grand manner suggesting THEY will say when we will be allowed to say we are offended. Sorry folks, stop whining, and take your fair share of the world's refugees.

I understand there are only about 117,161 refugees in England.....that seems like a very small number for a country the size of England. Perhaps counting Scotland, Wales, etc. there must be more (maybe WE should be counting Canada, etc. as well)? What I found online was: "In total, 3,261,561 refugees came to the United States from 1975 until 2015" and this does not include the 12 to 20 million economic refugees from all over the world (mostly Mexico) which we presently host. But I'm sure there's a good reason why England has shirked it's duty.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

25 Jan 2016, 2:23 pm

Weird, isn't it? It's almost as though members from the UK who post in this thread have no actual legislative power in the running of the UK.

It's also almost as though the people from the UK who post here do not necessarily endorse their government's attitude to and treatment of refugees, and perhaps might be involved in campaigns against this attitude and treatment.

It's further almost as though what Trump has said on the matter of immigration and refugees and Muslims may be criticised on its own terms, without having to come from a place of historical purity or a moral high ground.

I have not seen any attempt at a moral high ground in this thread. Could you quote such?


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Jan 2016, 7:14 pm

Hopper wrote:
Weird, isn't it? It's almost as though members from the UK who post in this thread have no actual legislative power in the running of the UK.

It's also almost as though the people from the UK who post here do not necessarily endorse their government's attitude to and treatment of refugees, and perhaps might be involved in campaigns against this attitude and treatment.

It's further almost as though what Trump has said on the matter of immigration and refugees and Muslims may be criticised on its own terms, without having to come from a place of historical purity or a moral high ground.

I have not seen any attempt at a moral high ground in this thread. Could you quote such?


"In what way have these rights been attacked? They apply only in regard to the actions of the US government. Trumps right to free speech is no more under attack were he banned from the UK for what he's said..."

Except, in this country (yours too?), unless you're preaching armed sedition (or some such), the United States will not ban you from entry. We feel the mere farce of Parliamentary discussion as though this were a serious manner is offensive. How could you (we) know this watching TV, movies, and online chats? We can't, which means sometimes friction develops between cultures (thank goodness we don't need to bomb each other).

So, unless someone has a major change of heart Trump's not to be banned, so everyone happy? I know I am.



Last edited by ZenDen on 25 Jan 2016, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 97,372
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Jan 2016, 7:17 pm

The Rump is nowhere near the worst we amuuricans have to offer the world. there's always cruz.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Jan 2016, 7:21 pm

Until I heard that^^



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

25 Jan 2016, 7:43 pm

ZenDen wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Weird, isn't it? It's almost as though members from the UK who post in this thread have no actual legislative power in the running of the UK.

It's also almost as though the people from the UK who post here do not necessarily endorse their government's attitude to and treatment of refugees, and perhaps might be involved in campaigns against this attitude and treatment.

It's further almost as though what Trump has said on the matter of immigration and refugees and Muslims may be criticised on its own terms, without having to come from a place of historical purity or a moral high ground.

I have not seen any attempt at a moral high ground in this thread. Could you quote such?


"In what way have these rights been attacked? They apply only in regard to the actions of the US government. Trumps right to free speech is no more under attack were he banned from the UK for what he's said..."

Except, in this country (yours too?), unless you're preaching armed sedition (or some such), the United States will not ban you from entry. We feel the mere farce of Parliamentary discussion as though this were a serious manner is offensive. How could you (we) know this watching TV, movies, and online chats? We can't, which means sometimes friction develops between cultures (thank goodness we don't need to bomb each other).

So, unless someone has a major change of heart Trump's not to be banned, so everyone happy? I know I am.


That bit in quote marks - was that meant to be a 'moral high ground' thing? That was in response to your saying Trump's First Amendment rights were being attacked. The First Amendment is only in regard to the US government. Every country in the world other than the US could ban Trump from entering and indeed order a blanket ban on reporting of what he's said - his First Amendment rights would still not be affected. Do you see?

And it is a serious matter. Trump talks an awful lot of s**t, and could well end up POTUS. Some of us here in the 51st state - I live in Wales - are a bit anxious about that.

From the article the OP cites and links to:

Quote:
Parliamentary power, however, isn't required to impose the "persona non grata" label. Home Secretary Theresa May can ban anyone who's been convicted of a crime and sent to prison or has broken immigration rules. If they are coming from outside the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), she can ban them if she considers their presence in the UK to be nonconducive to the public good.

In 2011, the U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who planned a Quran-burning protest, was barred on those grounds. Others who have been barred include Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky and ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen "Don" Black.

...

A petition to ban Trump was started by Suzanne Kelly, a freelance journalist in Aberdeen, Scotland, where Trump owns a nearby golf course and is a divisive figure. She was angry over Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Kelly's petition clearly hit a nerve, as it quickly gained enough signatures to be put forward as a topic of debate in Parliament. More than 575,000 people have signed it.

The debate is nonbinding, though. No vote of any kind will be held, so there will be no substantive result. In fact, opposition lawmaker Paul Flynn, who's leading the debate, thinks a ban could be counterproductive, as it could make Trump seem unfairly victimized and boost him in the eyes of Americans.

...

There's no sign the home secretary will ban Trump, but that doesn't mean she agrees with him. She has said his remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong, but the government has also said that exclusion powers are very serious and are not to be used lightly.

Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't support the ban, even though he called Trump's proposal to keep Muslims out of the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong." For good measure, he added, "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him."


http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/polit ... ngdom-ban/


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Jan 2016, 7:54 pm

Get your facts right ZenDen. It was the British Empire not the English Empire. At the height of the East India Company half of the administrators in the company were Scottish, in fact that was one of the conditions of the Act of Union that they would have access to the empire. All of the European nations and the US were at it.

Breaking News: None of us were born then! None of us had anything to do with that.

The Irish famine was cause by blight, due to lack of biodiversity of potatoes. They had one variety the Lumper. The corn laws didn't help, but many English people opposed those laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_League

Btw what makes you think Americans are any better> We have people today arguing in favour of protectionism just like then. Have you considered that the combination of that protectionism, whist insisting other countries don't follow in that example, is causing poverty?

The English civil war killed more English than any conflict before and since, and Cromwell was deeply unpopular, that is why the republic didn't last.

I went an American school for 2 years and I was shocked how poorly both American and World history was taught. Not at all objective, opinion taught as fact. That may have been just the education board. I'm sure some are better then others. I wonder, if I still have the text books somewhere.

I feel that a lot of the time people are just parroting a narrative they have been taught, which is probably why you don't understand the difference between UK and English. You are still stuck in 1776.

From the late 80s onward section of the Irish American community became badly out of touch with development in Irish / British relations. There is a great play on the subject called the The Big Fellah.

Also they never rely understood the the Protestant Unionists in Northern Ireland have Scottish (Presbyterian) ancestry not English.

Harper is in North Wales, I think. My surname is Welsh (I'm English with Welsh ancestry).

I see through your obvious anti-English bias. I can't take you seriously. If you want to get hot and brother over nothing be my guest. No skin off my back.

Be offended all you like. You have freedom to be offended. You don't have freedom not to be offended.



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 25 Jan 2016, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheExodus
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Age: 24
Posts: 152
Location: York, England

25 Jan 2016, 7:55 pm

>Trump calls to ban Muslims in America
>Let's ban trump from England
>Definitely no hypocrisy there

Is this the level of idiocy, incompetence and petty spitefulness I'll be forced to live my entire adult life in? :oops:


_________________
Such is life, that expressing yourself and the truth has you berated.