Freedom of Speech, alive and well in the UK

[jimnyc]

NOT!


Man jailed over Woolwich murder Facebook comments

A man who posted offensive comments on Facebook following the death of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich has been jailed.

Benjamin Flatters, 22, from Lincoln, was charged with an offence of malicious communications.

He was sentenced to 14 days in prison when he appeared at Skegness Magistrates' Court.

Police investigated after members of the public raised concerns the comments made by Flatters could incite racial hatred.

Drummer Rigby, 25, died in an attack in south-east London on 22 May.

Lincolnshire Police said the force was committed to taking "robust action" where social media posts break the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22878117

And the original article from when he was charged. I believe this is a polite way of saying that they don't want to upset the countries Muslims. Tis cool if they are concerned about violence, or even just hatred, but not by limiting someone's freedom of speech. I can't help but think that eventually we will see similar crap happening here.


A man has been charged in connection with messages posted on social media following the death of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

Benjamin Flatters, 22, of Lincoln, has been charged with an offence of malicious communications.

He has been remanded in custody to appear at Lincoln Magistrates' Court on Saturday.

Police investigated after members of the public raised concerns the comments could incite racial hatred.

Officers also visited a second man and gave him a verbal warning.

Drummer Rigby, 25, died in an attack in south-east London on Wednesday. Two suspects shot by police after the attack remain under arrest.

A house in Saxilby, Lincolnshire, thought to be the former home of one of the suspects, has been searched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22656549

[aboutime]

Jim. Kind of a reminder about WHY we...The Colonies across the Atlantic were formed against England.

Not much has changed in the U.K.

Bet there are still a FEW Brit's like Sir Drummond who someday hope to experience our kind of Constitutional Society where
Speech is granted to preserve the Liberty, and Freedoms we enjoy on this side of the Pond???

Whenever I see this kind of information in the U.K. I thank GOD....I live in this nation. Despite all of it's problems.

There is still NO OTHER PLACE ON EARTH like....HERE.

[Drummond]

It's good to see this thread here. Thanks to both Jim (for raising the issue and highlighting it) and Aboutime for his answering comments.

'Hatespeech' is a concept which legislators have worked to find ways of outlawing here. So far from being an undesirable, anti-free speech issue, most here would consider that it's all supposed to have a civilising effect, that speech which could incite hatreds, violence, prejudices, are so undesirable as to need strong censure.

Need I point out that it's chiefly our Left that's been the driving force behind all this .. the people who like to define what people, by their standards, 'SHOULD' be thinking ...

I think there's been a notable example of censure in recent days, but one edited OUT of our general awareness. I refer to the story I saw on this forum of someone in Australia giving vent to feelings of support for Lee Rigby's murderer. I only know about it from this forum .. I've seen absolutely no mention of it whatever in the British press, not then, nor since.

We are meant to think and behave according to social preference, which, YES, means that what measures the authorities CAN take to stamp on undesirable expressiveness, they will take.

That Leftie paper, the Guardian, has featured here on this forum quite a bit lately. I'll extend that a little more, by offering this link. Though the author's intended focus isn't totally appropriate to the thread, comments he's supplied are informative as to so-called 'British thinking' ... see these selected quotes ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech


All incitements to hatred should be treated with the same zero tolerance. But not, in my opinion, by means of criminal sanctions. Free speech is precious. It should be limited only in exceptional circumstances - when it slips into inciting violence and murder.


My real gripe is that inciting violence is much more serious than inciting hatred. Yet the laws prohibiting the advocacy and encouragement of homophobic violence are often not enforced.

For nearly two decades, despite repeated appeals from the gay community, the government, police and prosecution service have allowed record stores and radio stations to promote "murder music" songs inciting the killing of queers. Jamaican artists such as Buju Banton, Beenie Man and Bounty Killa have released CDs that openly encourage and glorify the shooting, burning, hanging and drowning of gay and lesbian people.

Inciting murder is a criminal offence under long-standing laws. Yet these songs have been given airplay on mainstream radio stations such as the BBC, as well as on local black pirate stations. The tracks are sold openly in many record stores and via online websites such as Amazon. The police have made no attempt to take action against the record companies and distributors, the record stores and websites, and the radio stations and deejays.

The police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would never take such a hands-off approach to people who incited violence against black or Jewish people. Why the double standards?

Likewise, some fundamentalist Muslim clerics, on the extremist wing of Islam, openly urge the killing of gay people, unchaste women and Muslims who turn away from their faith. In east London in 2005, hate preacher Abdul Muhid of the pro-jihad Saviour Sect, urged the murder of homosexuals. Despite witnesses willing to go to court, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute him. Yet when the Islamist Abdullah el-Faisal incited the murder of Jews, Hindus and Americans in 2003 he was promptly arrested, convicted and jailed. More double standards.

The non-prosecution of Muslim clerics who incite the murder of gay people is a tragic betrayal of vulnerable gay and lesbian Muslims. They live in fear of the homophobic violence that is being stirred up by Islamist extremists. What signal does this official hands-off attitude send to queer Muslims? That the government does not care about their suffering? Police and CPS inaction gives homophobic persecutors a de facto green light to continue their violent threats.

Introducing legislation prohibiting the incitement of homophobic hatred seems a bit amiss when already-existing laws are not being enforced against the much more serious crimes of inciting violence and murder. Please, Mr Straw, ensure the enforcement of the current laws before you start introducing new ones.

It's interesting, isn't it ? On the one hand, we have the 'Free speech is precious' claim being made. But on the other, our author from this Leftie newspaper only cares about disparities of the degree with which authorities act to crack down on its expression !!

That this happens, doesn't bother him. He obviously feels that, so long as the way it's done measures up to his preferred consistency, such censure, and all acts which further it, are thoroughly defendable.

Here's the danger: the expression of good intentions, the argument of what supposed good flows from 'undesirable' expressiveness being controlled or curtailed. And, guess what ?

It'll always be THE LEFT who will want to decide these things. For me. For you. For everybody. And, with supportive legislation on the statute books, if you don't like such controls ... TOUGH .....

[Robert A Whit]

America defends hateful speech yet in some cases, during the commission of crime, adds extra penalty if the crime is created by hate speech.

[fj1200]

Here's the danger: the expression of good intentions, the argument of what supposed good flows from 'undesirable' expressiveness being controlled or curtailed. And, guess what ?

It'll always be THE LEFT who will want to decide these things. For me. For you. For everybody. And, with supportive legislation on the statute books, if you don't like such controls ... TOUGH .....

And yet you wish to "edit" what you oppose. The right can be just as desirous of controlling as the left.

[aboutime]

It's good to see this thread here. Thanks to both Jim (for raising the issue and highlighting it) and Aboutime for his answering comments.

'Hatespeech' is a concept which legislators have worked to find ways of outlawing here. So far from being an undesirable, anti-free speech issue, most here would consider that it's all supposed to have a civilising effect, that speech which could incite hatreds, violence, prejudices, are so undesirable as to need strong censure.

Need I point out that it's chiefly our Left that's been the driving force behind all this .. the people who like to define what people, by their standards, 'SHOULD' be thinking ...

I think there's been a notable example of censure in recent days, but one edited OUT of our general awareness. I refer to the story I saw on this forum of someone in Australia giving vent to feelings of support for Lee Rigby's murderer. I only know about it from this forum .. I've seen absolutely no mention of it whatever in the British press, not then, nor since.

We are meant to think and behave according to social preference, which, YES, means that what measures the authorities CAN take to stamp on undesirable expressiveness, they will take.

That Leftie paper, the Guardian, has featured here on this forum quite a bit lately. I'll extend that a little more, by offering this link. Though the author's intended focus isn't totally appropriate to the thread, comments he's supplied are informative as to so-called 'British thinking' ... see these selected quotes ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech





It's interesting, isn't it ? On the one hand, we have the 'Free speech is precious' claim being made. But on the other, our author from this Leftie newspaper only cares about disparities of the degree with which authorities act to crack down on its expression !!

That this happens, doesn't bother him. He obviously feels that, so long as the way it's done measures up to his preferred consistency, such censure, and all acts which further it, are thoroughly defendable.

Here's the danger: the expression of good intentions, the argument of what supposed good flows from 'undesirable' expressiveness being controlled or curtailed. And, guess what ?

It'll always be THE LEFT who will want to decide these things. For me. For you. For everybody. And, with supportive legislation on the statute books, if you don't like such controls ... TOUGH .....


Sir Drummond. Speech, of all kinds, no matter how anyone wishes to identify it. Under our 1st amendment. And much to the displeasure of the same Liberals who label everything they disagree with as HATE SPEECH...has been made Legal, and Acceptable by the SUPREME COURT of the U.S.
In other words. Lying is permitted by anyone. Even Phony Politicians who CLAIM to be WAR HERO's...but are actually lying. Can say whatever they want. Which...is why OBAMA is able to lie repeatedly, and nobody can stop him. Only prove he is A LIAR.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/supreme-court-strikes-stolen-valor-lie-military-service/story?id=16669096

Or....
http://youtu.be/bVYZI7Rh6_E

[fj1200]

Sir Drummond. Speech, of all kinds, no matter how anyone wishes to identify it. Under our 1st amendment. And much to the displeasure of the same Liberals who label everything they disagree with as HATE SPEECH...has been made Legal, and Acceptable by the SUPREME COURT of the U.S.

Yelled "fire" in a theater lately?

[Drummond]

And yet you wish to "edit" what you oppose. The right can be just as desirous of controlling as the left.

What are you claiming that I've edited ? What's your context for that remark ?

And I have to observe: this, coming from you of all people, is rich !!! How many posts on this forum, when replying to me, have shown swathes of 'crossings-out' of my own text ??? You do this, yet complain about the 'crutch' of the accusation of Leftieism I aim in your direction ... yet, there you are, acting like a classic, censorial Leftie !!!!

You can't claim methodological parity, FJ, in our relative behaviours. Never, once, have I stooped to such a tactic. But, as for you ...

[aboutime]

What are you claiming that I've edited ? What's your context for that remark ?

And I have to observe: this, coming from you of all people, is rich !!! How many posts on this forum, when replying to me, have shown swathes of 'crossings-out' of my own text ??? You do this, yet complain about the 'crutch' of the accusation of Leftieism I aim in your direction ... yet, there you are, acting like a classic, censorial Leftie !!!!

You can't claim methodological parity, FJ, in our relative behavoiurs. Never, once, have I stooped to such a tactic. But, as for you ...


Sir Drummond. Something many of us over here on the Western side of the Atlantic have discovered, and observed rather often lately. Has been the wannabe pretenders like Obama who claim to be so much more highly educated than everyone else. And generally. Those are the Stealthy Liberal types who demand Only their words should be taken as Gospel, while everyone else...with whom they disagree, should be ignored.
FJ, GABBY, and several other Logrolling members here are nothing but the troll-like hypocrites they always feel so willing to accuse others of being. It's nothing but another form of excuse...more often called Lies.
So. As you can see. Their sole intention is to create endless hate, and discontent that will generate anger...and eventually cause them to declare their own WORTHLESSNESS.

[fj1200]

What are you claiming that I've edited ? What's your context for that remark ?

And I have to observe: this, coming from you of all people, is rich !!! How many posts on this forum, when replying to me, have shown swathes of 'crossings-out' of my own text ??? You do this, yet complain about the 'crutch' of the accusation of Leftieism I aim in your direction ... yet, there you are, acting like a classic, censorial Leftie !!!!

You can't claim methodological parity, FJ, in our relative behaviours. Never, once, have I stooped to such a tactic. But, as for you ...

There's a reason "edit" was in quotes; It was a reference to the speech subject of this thread. The context was your claim that the "left wishes to decide" in contrast to your wish to decide many things; many things where you want the State to act on your wishes. You are the left you say you despise.

Also, your claim of censorship is balderdash. I have no power of censorship as anyone can go to the original post and see your words in all their "glory." And thankfully Jim exhibits his powers very seldom. I only cross out to make a point.

[fj1200]

FJ, GABBY, and several other Logrolling members here are nothing but the troll-like hypocrites they always feel so willing to accuse others of being. It's nothing but another form of excuse...more often called Lies.

Point out a lie.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Something many of us over here on the Western side of the Atlantic have discovered, and observed rather often lately. Has been the wannabe pretenders like Obama who claim to be so much more highly educated than everyone else. And generally. Those are the Stealthy Liberal types who demand Only their words should be taken as Gospel, while everyone else...with whom they disagree, should be ignored.
FJ, GABBY, and several other Logrolling members here are nothing but the troll-like hypocrites they always feel so willing to accuse others of being. It's nothing but another form of excuse...more often called Lies.
So. As you can see. Their sole intention is to create endless hate, and discontent that will generate anger...and eventually cause them to declare their own WORTHLESSNESS.:clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

There's a reason "edit" was in quotes; It was a reference to the speech subject of this thread. The context was your claim that the "left wishes to decide" in contrast to your wish to decide many things; many things where you want the State to act on your wishes. You are the left you say you despise.

Glibly put.

But note the Guardian writer. He claims to revere free speech, yet is critical of disparities in its censure. Of course, he's writing for a Leftie newspaper ...

I wish to decide many things ... perhaps so. I still don't know your context. I would say, though, that I represent certain views, beliefs, which I think should predominate, win out, against their opposites. But that's because those opposites - once exercised - are provably far worse.

My focus, like other Conservatives, is on the individual, and his or her life enrichment. Islam doesn't enrich, it spreads misery and destruction - it is poison. The Left don't 'enrich' when they stifle the individual entirely and insist upon their own brand of suffocating, centralised dictatorships.

So don't tell me I'm the Left I despise. This is as untrue as it possibly could be.


Also, your claim of censorship is balderdash. I have no power of censorship as anyone can go to the original post and see your words in all their "glory."

Quite - they can indeed. And you have absolutely no power to change that.

It irks you, doesn't it ?

So, you do the next best thing. You can't edit the original posts, but you CAN offer a representation of a form of it through illustration. Even if you can't edit as such, you can still demonstrate the action of it, and plant the idea that text YOU think deserves editing, others should see as deserving of it as well.

You do what you can in that regard.


And thankfully Jim exhibits his powers very seldom. I only cross out to make a point.

And that point is the issue. What you'd prefer to do, you instead portray. To make a point ... as you say.

[fj1200]

:clap::clap::clap:

I read his post again to see what you might be applauding... and honestly it made less sense the second time around.

[fj1200]

Glibly put.

But note the Guardian writer. He claims to revere free speech, yet is critical of disparities in its censure. Of course, he's writing for a Leftie newspaper ...

I wish to decide many things ... perhaps so. I still don't know your context. I would say, though, that I represent certain views, beliefs, which I think should predominate, win out, against their opposites. But that's because those opposites - once exercised - are provably far worse.

My focus, like other Conservatives, is on the individual, and his or her life enrichment. Islam doesn't enrich, it spreads misery and destruction - it is poison. The Left don't 'enrich' when they stifle the individual entirely and insist upon their own brand of suffocating, centralised dictatorships.

So don't tell me I'm the Left I despise. This is as untrue as it possibly could be.

And yet you claim to revere freedom and limited government, yet at every turn you are advocating for increasing power of the State over the individual. I wish you didn't advocate for increasing State power but there it is. You think you are covered because Islam is so bad but freedom should be freedom with the State's power limited.

And with all due respect you very seldom here focus on the individual, you focus on that which you despise.


Quite - they can indeed. And you have absolutely no power to change that.

It irks you, doesn't it ?

So, you do the next best thing. You can't edit the original posts, but you CAN offer a representation of a form of it through illustration. Even if you can't edit as such, you can still demonstrate the action of it, and plant the idea that text YOU think deserves editing, others should see as deserving of it as well.

You do what you can in that regard.

Irks me? No. I value freedoms and the limited power that our overlord (Jim in this case) exercises And yes, I CAN offer a representation of what value I do assign to some words. If something gets crossed out I'm just exercising my freedom to do so; Jim provides the platform for your speech, it doesn't mean I need to listen. You could up your game if it bothers you so.


And that point is the issue. What you'd prefer to do, you instead portray. To make a point ... as you say.

Of course it's the issue. It's just easier to illustrate pointless repetition, i.e. your leftie crutch.

[Drummond]

I read his post again to see what you might be applauding... and honestly it made less sense the second time around.

Perhaps if you identified less readily with those Aboutime was commenting on, you'd attain a level of objectivity allowing you to acknowledge the truth ?

Lefties are con merchants. Determined to exercise their will on others, to manipulate as they see fit.

A simple example: think back to the days when Obama was trying for the Presidency for the first time. His mantra was one of bringing 'change'. Yet ... it was hype. WHAT 'change' ? He actually won the Presidency through image-making and empty rhetoric, dressed up to SEEM appealing.

Once in office, he proved, like so many of his kind, to be a poisonous control freak. Partly because his brand of politics brought that anyway, but partly also because he cares not a jot for the true soul of America. Its foundling principles. The sacrosanct nature of the US Constitution, which he'll happily chip away at however he can, or wants to do.

[Robert A Whit]

Yelled "fire" in a theater lately?

Will you if the theater is on fire?

[fj1200]

Perhaps if you identified less readily with those Aboutime was commenting on, you'd attain a level of objectivity allowing you to acknowledge the truth ?

Lefties are con merchants. Determined to exercise their will on others, to manipulate as they see fit.

A simple example: think back to the days when Obama was trying for the Presidency for the first time. His mantra was one of bringing 'change'. Yet ... it was hype. WHAT 'change' ? He actually won the Presidency through image-making and empty rhetoric, dressed up to SEEM appealing.

Once in office, he proved, like so many of his kind, to be a poisonous control freak. Partly because his brand of politics brought that anyway, but partly also because he cares not a jot for the true soul of America. Its foundling principles. The sacrosanct nature of the US Constitution, which he'll happily chip away at however he can, or wants to do.

Newsflash; he mentioned me, ignorantly so but nevertheless he did. I see not even you read it that closely.

As far as lefties, and BO in particular, go; they suck. Always have, always will. But as you point out he is of the left and wishes for increasing power of government. It's just worse when "righties" buy into that expansion whether for their own desires or not.

And why did he win? Because he wasn't Bush.

[fj1200]

Will you if the theater is on fire?

Touche.

[Drummond]

And yet you claim to revere freedom and limited government, yet at every turn you are advocating for increasing power of the State over the individual. I wish you didn't advocate for increasing State power but there it is. You think you are covered because Islam is so bad but freedom should be freedom with the State's power limited.

Again, you're light on actual context.

Government is, at times, a necessity. Take the aftermath of 9/11, and the War on Terror which SHOULD be continuing. Who else but Government can, or does, wield the power and the will to do what must be done to protect the interests of the American people ? And ... who else but a representative Government can make meaningful contact with other world powers, to liaise, and make the proper international difference ?

Try leaving the defence of the nation to some local officials in Connecticut. See how far you'd get. I somehow can't imagine Connecticut, unilaterally, mounting a successful bombing campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, can you ?


And with all due respect you very seldom here focus on the individual, you focus on that which you despise.

The one follows from the other. I despise the tyranny of Islam. Were the world to be free of it, those INDIVIDUALS who'd otherwise have had their lives blighted by it would instead live healthy, happy, productive lives.


Irks me? No. I value freedoms and the limited power that our overlord (Jim in this case) exercises And yes, I CAN offer a representation of what value I do assign to some words. If something gets crossed out I'm just exercising my freedom to do so; Jim provides the platform for your speech, it doesn't mean I need to listen. You could up your game if it bothers you so.

To what 'game' do you refer ? What on earth are you going on about ?

You are correct in one detail. Yes, you can and do offer your representations of the value you assign to specific texts. And, how do you do this ?

Through the depiction of CENSURE, that's how.

You talk about a 'game'. How about the gamesmanship of not relying on the force of an argument to stand up to scrutiny, but instead to divert towards showy tricks to project disdain ?

It is certainly trickery. Since you cannot ever be sure of sustaining your arguments through their own worth, you go in for other tricks to help things along. Sad to say, though, that you don't get the purchase from them that you must hope for.

[Robert A Whit]

Newsflash; he mentioned me, ignorantly so but nevertheless he did. I see not even you read it that closely.

As far as lefties, and BO in particular, go; they suck. Always have, always will. But as you point out he is of the left and wishes for increasing power of government. It's just worse when "righties" buy into that expansion whether for their own desires or not.

And why did he win? Because he wasn't Bush.

Yet Bush was the much better president. Nobody accused Bush all the time of following the parade only to claim he led the parade.

Bush is a natural born leader. Obama talks to please.

[fj1200]

Again, you're light on actual context.

Government is, at times, a necessity. Take the aftermath of 9/11, and the War on Terror which SHOULD be continuing. Who else but Government can, or does, wield the power and the will to do what must be done to protect the interests of the American people ? And ... who else but a representative Government can make meaningful contact with other world powers, to liaise, and make the proper international difference ?

Try leaving the defence of the nation to some local officials in Connecticut. See how far you'd get. I somehow can't imagine Connecticut, unilaterally, mounting a successful bombing campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, can you ?

If you don't know the context I really can't help you unless you're being willfully obstinate; I've pointed out your desire for increased power of the State in multiple threads. Now I see you're presenting a strawman, no one has suggested that the local CT police are going to fight the Taliban but to advocate for increasing government power at almost every turn is beyond the pale. We have a Constitution and we should fight the war on terror within it's confines and not just declare it's optional if we can save "just one life."

But you're right about one thing, the government is the entity charged with national defense; it's even in the Constitution.


The one follows from the other. I despise the tyranny of Islam. Were the world to be free of it, those INDIVIDUALS who'd otherwise have had their lives blighted by it would instead live healthy, happy, productive lives.

One doesn't follow the other when you back unlimited State power to fight that which you despise.


To what 'game' do you refer ? What on earth are you going on about ?

You are correct in one detail. Yes, you can and do offer your representations of the value you assign to specific texts. And, how do you do this ?

Through the depiction of CENSURE, that's how.

You talk about a 'game'. How about the gamesmanship of not relying on the force of an argument to stand up to scrutiny, but instead to divert towards showy tricks to project disdain ?

It is certainly trickery. Since you cannot ever be sure of sustaining your arguments through their own worth, you go in for other tricks to help things along. Sad to say, though, that you don't get the purchase from them that you must hope for.

Your game... your ability to express rational thoughts...

I must laugh at your comment about "sustaining my arguments" given your repeated use of the "leftie" crutch. I would also disagree on my "purchase," the kerfuffle it created is most amusing.

[Drummond]

Newsflash; he mentioned me, ignorantly so but nevertheless he did. I see not even you read it that closely.

As far as lefties, and BO in particular, go; they suck. Always have, always will. But as you point out he is of the left and wishes for increasing power of government. It's just worse when "righties" buy into that expansion whether for their own desires or not.

And why did he win? Because he wasn't Bush.

Another newsflash: you weren't the only individual referred to. But perhaps this got past you ?

My point stands. THOSE mentioned are, evidently, those you also identify with. So closely, it seems, that you cannot distinguish yourself from the others !

Your case about Left v Right doesn't ultimately hold water. The Left are control freaks. They don't just wield power, they create it, gather it, consolidate it, make it inviolable ... and insist that others don't just do their bidding, but THINK in the way that they're told to think.

The Right wield power in defence of individual liberty. They may consolidate it at times, but this is done through practical necessity. They don't insist that people march in lockstep to them psychologically, but rather, if they have a case to make, an argument needing to be listened to, they make that case forthrightly and honestly.

[fj1200]

Yet Bush was the much better president. Nobody accused Bush all the time of following the parade only to claim he led the parade.

Bush is a natural born leader. Obama talks to please.

Not the issue, he wasn't going to help get anyone elected in '08 except for BO.

[fj1200]

Another newsflash: you weren't the only individual referred to. But perhaps this got past you ?

My point stands. THOSE mentioned are, evidently, those you also identify with. So closely, it seems, that you cannot distinguish yourself from the others !

Your case about Left v Right doesn't ultimately hold water. The Left are control freaks. They don't just wield power, they create it, gather it, consolidate it, make it inviolable ... and insist that others don't just do their bidding, but THINK in the way that they're told to think.

The Right wield power in defence of individual liberty. They may consolidate it at times, but this is done through practical necessity. They don't insist that people march in lockstep to them psychologically, but rather, if they have a case to make, an argument needing to be listened to, they make that case forthrightly and honestly.

I wasn't the only one? Really? Did you have to read it twice to understand that? Geez. I pointed out his reference to me and his ignorant statement. That you identify with that nonsensical blather is most disappointing indeed.

Your defense of big government is noted, not that it hasn't been noted multiple times.

[aboutime]

Another newsflash: you weren't the only individual referred to. But perhaps this got past you ?

My point stands. THOSE mentioned are, evidently, those you also identify with. So closely, it seems, that you cannot distinguish yourself from the others !

Your case about Left v Right doesn't ultimately hold water. The Left are control freaks. They don't just wield power, they create it, gather it, consolidate it, make it inviolable ... and insist that others don't just do their bidding, but THINK in the way that they're told to think.

The Right wield power in defence of individual liberty. They may consolidate it at times, but this is done through practical necessity. They don't insist that people march in lockstep to them psychologically, but rather, if they have a case to make, an argument needing to be listened to, they make that case forthrightly and honestly.


Sir Drummond. Just another, typical, liberal case, or technique used frequently to disguise actual facts. I call it defensive in nature.
Otherwise. Why would anyone feel any need to DEFEND anything unless...they had something to Defend in the first place. Such as made-up facts, we normally identify as lies.
And, we shouldn't forget. As the old saying goes in reference to today's Liberal, Left-leaning, Democrats WHO have been constantly reminded, and trained to REPEAT known Lies as Facts Often enough....until they are eventually Believed by those who create the lies....I mean...Liberal facts.

[fj1200]

... and trained to REPEAT known Lies as Facts Often enough....until they are eventually Believed by those who create the lies....I mean...Liberal facts.


Point out a lie.

Still can't do it can you? Man, you suck at TRUTH.

[Drummond]

If you don't know the context I really can't help you unless you're being willfully obstinate; I've pointed out your desire for increased power of the State in multiple threads. Now I see you're presenting a strawman, no one has suggested that the local CT police are going to fight the Taliban but to advocate for increasing government power at almost every turn is beyond the pale. We have a Constitution and we should fight the war on terror within it's confines and not just declare it's optional if we can save "just one life."

So tell me, then, are Al Qaeda at war with America as a whole, or not ?

And if at war with America, isn't it America, as a country, which should be responding in kind ?

Should America exercise the proper powers in responding ? To be most effective ? OR, should they oppose their savage enemy with minimal effectiveness ?

Indeed - should America BE on a war footing, or not ? It's always the Left, isn't it, that bleats on about the preservation of PEACETIME conditions when there's a WAR going on ... !! ...


But you're right about one thing, the government is the entity charged with national defense; it's even in the Constitution.

... Just so long as they're LESS powerful about it than they need to be ?


One doesn't follow the other when you back unlimited State power to fight that which you despise.

Remind me, then. Where have I said that UNLIMITED State power is what's called for ? Is it your contention that only a totally unlimited State machine can wield all the power it needs to in order to defend its people ?

I advocate strong Government, as and when reality demands it. Don't mistake this for the Leftie desire that an unlimited State machine be a permanent thing. Granted, though, that if you are indeed a Leftie, you'll struggle to see any difference.


I must laugh at your comment about "sustaining my arguments" given your repeated use of the "leftie" crutch. I would also disagree on my "purchase," the kerfuffle it created is most amusing.

Ironic. Lefties need the crutch of their propagandising to hope to get anywhere at all. Oh, and their trickery, too.

You could instead try force of argument to win out.

You'd fail. You need your tricks and your disdain to get the balance 'right'.

[fj1200]

So tell me, then, are Al Qaeda at war with America as a whole, or not ?

And if at war with America, isn't it America, as a country, which should be responding in kind ?

Should America exercise the proper powers in responding ? To be most effective ? OR, should they oppose their savage enemy with minimal effectiveness ?

Indeed - should America BE on a war footing, or not ? It's always the Left, isn't it, that bleats on about the preservation of PEACETIME conditions when there's a WAR going on ... !! ...

:rolleyes: I don't recall anyone here saying that we shouldn't be responding to AQ who still seeks us harm. Of course that doesn't mean that we invade every country that may harbor AQ, we don't grant the Executive the power to pass law, judge, and execute citizens without oversight, we don't toss out the Constitution, we shouldn't resort to torture, etc. etc. etc.

Of course you've never admitted to anything less than full expansion that I've seen. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary.


... Just so long as they're LESS powerful about it than they need to be ?

:dunno: Trying to throw in another ignorant "leftie" dig?


Remind me, then. Where have I said that UNLIMITED State power is what's called for ? Is it your contention that only a totally unlimited State machine can wield all the power it needs to in order to defend its people ?

I advocate strong Government, as and when reality demands it. Don't mistake this for the Leftie desire that an unlimited State machine be a permanent thing. Granted, though, that if you are indeed a Leftie, you'll struggle to see any difference.

Where have you not? I've never seen you say that anything less than what we're doing is necessary and have even advocated for more. And once you advocate for denial of natural rights I'm not sure how much more unlimited you can get. Whether you think it's a wish for a "leftie" desire the arc of government is higher, rarely lower. I don't see where the right needs to aid or abet that.


Ironic. Lefties need the crutch of their propagandising to hope to get anywhere at all. Oh, and their trickery, too.

You could instead try force of argument to win out.

You'd fail. You need your tricks and your disdain to get the balance 'right'.

Great advice; you should give it a try without resorting to your "leftie" crutch. Nevertheless, true conservatism always wins, it's just a shame that you think you fit the bill.

[aboutime]

Still can't do it can you? Man, you suck at TRUTH.


Too bad your version of Truth is nothing but the constantly repeated, brainwashed kind. While the truth I present here is Proven to be factual.
Sounds like YOU have the problem. Not me.

[Drummond]

I wasn't the only one? Really?

... Well ... YES. How nice that you realised that eventually.


Did you have to read it twice to understand that? Geez.

Don't foist your own failings upon me, as though they are instead mine. That you need to do so is understood, however ...


I pointed out his reference to me and his ignorant statement.

... simultaneously concentrating on your own ego, whilst going in for your bog-standard disdain tactic. Yes, I've already referred to your trickery.


That you identify with that nonsensical blather

See what I mean ?


Your defense of big government is noted, not that it hasn't been noted multiple times.

Correction: my ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the necessity of Governmental power, for those times when realism demands its application.

[Drummond]

Ah, FJ, I see you're back to the crossings-out ! Felt a need for them, did you ?


:rolleyes: I don't recall anyone here saying that we shouldn't be responding to AQ who still seeks us harm. Of course that doesn't mean that we invade every country that may harbor AQ, we don't grant the Executive the power to pass law, judge, and execute citizens without oversight, we don't toss out the Constitution, we shouldn't resort to torture, etc. etc. etc.

H'm. I'm not sure that this long list of yours leaves you with anything much at all !

But what if one of those countries harbouring Al Qaeda happens to be their chief training base of operations ? Or, an important strategic centre from which many future attacks will emanate ?

What if Al Qaeda gets a nuke one day, and a territory you've preferred not to tackle just happens to be where a nuke attack on America originates from ?

As for these 'citizens' you refer to, tell me, are they, or are they not, your enemies, 'citizens' who really don't deserve such a status ?

And I've seen from the above that you've gone back, once more, to 'let's defend a terrorist' mode. Defend from the reality that they're not even human, so that you can confer on them 'rights' they couldn't possibly either have earned, or even begin to relate to ...

Typical Leftie fayre, that ... I've heard these stances, time and again, from Left-wing sellout types. So very tiresome.


:dunno: Trying to throw in another ignorant "leftie" dig?

Have you ever tried to vary these tactics of yours ?


Where have you not? I've never seen you say that anything less than what we're doing is necessary and have even advocated for more. And once you advocate for denial of natural rights I'm not sure how much more unlimited you can get. Whether you think it's a wish for a "leftie" desire the arc of government is higher, rarely lower. I don't see where the right needs to aid or abet that.

I could argue these mini-points endlessly. How about, instead, realising that if your enemy ever won out over you - say, if they ever managed their 'worldwide Caliphate' they dream of - you'd see the end of anything bearing the remotest resemblance to Western values and freedoms, much less American ones.

Oh, and I'd watch out for any kids you may have, if I were you. That Mohammed pervert left a lasting impression ....


Great advice; you should give it a try without resorting to your "leftie" crutch. Nevertheless, true conservatism always wins, it's just a shame that you think you fit the bill.

Then how come other, highly worthy Conservatives, recognise me as one of their own ?

And what you call a 'Leftie crutch' is nothing more than a reminder of a truth you keep illustrating. You REALLY don't like being reminded of it, do you ?

[aboutime]

Ah, FJ, I see you're back to the crossings-out ! Felt a need for them, did you ?



H'm. I'm not sure that this long list of yours leaves you with anything much at all !

But what if one of those countries harbouring Al Qaeda happens to be their chief training base of operations ? Or, an important strategic centre from which many future attacks will emanate ?

What if Al Qaeda gets a nuke one day, and a territory you've preferred not to tackle just happens to be where a nuke attack on America originates from ?

As for these 'citizens' you refer to, tell me, are they, or are they not, your enemies, 'citizens' who really don't deserve such a status ?

And I've seen from the above that you've gone back, once more, to 'let's defend a terrorist' mode. Defend from the reality that they're not even human, so that you can confer on them 'rights' they couldn't possibly either have earned, or even begin to relate to ...

Typical Leftie fayre, that ... I've heard these stances, time and again, from Left-wing sellout types. So very tiresome.



Have you ever tried to vary these tactics of yours ?



I could argue these mini-points endlessly. How about, instead, realising that if your enemy ever won out over you - say, if they ever managed their 'worldwide Caliphate' they dream of - you'd see the end of anything bearing the remotest resemblance to Western values and freedoms, much less American ones.

Oh, and I'd watch out for any kids you may have, if I were you. That Mohammed pervert left a lasting impression ....



Then how come other, highly worthy Conservatives, recognise me as one of their own ?

And what you call a 'Leftie crutch' is nothing more than a reminder of a truth you keep illustrating. You REALLY don't like being reminded of it, do you ?


Sir Drummond. Seems many of the DP members are actually using this forum as a release for their endless frustrations, and attempting to include the rest of us in their miserable, tiring lives. Why someone must continually come here to endlessly argue over such trivial, absolutely unimportant things all the time. Is just becoming a study in how terrible, and inattentive some people really are.
So. The more successful some people are at bringing everyone else down to their level...without fail. Is just Comical at times. And terribly sad otherwise.
Just watch the reactions to my statement. Good thing it's a fun weekend.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Seems many of the DP members are actually using this forum as a release for their endless frustrations, and attempting to include the rest of us in their miserable, tiring lives. Why someone must continually come here to endlessly argue over such trivial, absolutely unimportant things all the time. Is just becoming a study in how terrible, and inattentive some people really are.
So. The more successful some people are at bringing everyone else down to their level...without fail. Is just Comical at times. And terribly sad otherwise.
Just watch the reactions to my statement. Good thing it's a fun weekend.

:goodposting: Nicely put. I was just thinking how tiresome all this is.

FJ is, by now, probably near the tipping-point I've seen before, from semi-relevance to outright incessant put-downs. I see he's already reverted to the ridiculous 'crossings-out' stage, even though my criticism of it exposed it for what it was.

[aboutime]

:goodposting: Nicely put. I was just thinking how tiresome all this is.

FJ is, by now, probably near the tipping-point I've seen before, from semi-relevance to outright incessant put-downs. I see he's already reverted to the ridiculous 'crossings-out' stage, even though my criticism of it exposed it for what it was.


FJ also seems to be related to Robert. Scorning you, and I for thanking, and applauding our posts. An attempt to distract, and even change the subject in many ways. Removing attention from, and attempts to change the context. All typical, and easily recognized techniques used by liberals. Funny thing is. The use of that word...liberal, in many respects. Has become almost as hazardous as using the infamous 'N' word for so many. Anything anyone says. No matter who they are...becomes cannon fodder for the mentally challenged who must always find a reason to blame others for SOMETHING.

[Robert A Whit]

FJ1200 lamenting how the enemy has it so bad.:rolleyes: I don't recall anyone here saying that we shouldn't be responding to AQ who still seeks us harm. Of course that doesn't mean that we invade every country that may harbor AQ, we don't grant the Executive the power to pass law, judge, and execute citizens without oversight, we don't toss out the Constitution, we shouldn't resort to torture, etc. etc. etc.

War is not for pussies.

During war, far worse than torture happens per the rules of wat. Want to talk torture?

Try being in burning buildings as they are blown up.

That is real torture.

Try losing legs to IED.

Want to discuss torture?

Waterboarding our way has never been torture. It is far less to endure than than those blown off legs.
Bush did it the right way.

He did it the good old US Navy way.

[logroller]

NOT!



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22878117

And the original article from when he was charged. I believe this is a polite way of saying that they don't want to upset the countries Muslims. Tis cool if they are concerned about violence, or even just hatred, but not by limiting someone's freedom of speech. I can't help but think that eventually we will see similar crap happening here.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22656549
What did he say exactly? With all the banter across intrawebs, I've yet to see what is allegedly criminal speech. It seems premature I draw conclusions without the facts.

Sir Drummond. Something many of us over here on the Western side of the Atlantic have discovered, and observed rather often lately. Has been the wannabe pretenders like Obama who claim to be so much more highly educated than everyone else. And generally. Those are the Stealthy Liberal types who demand Only their words should be taken as Gospel, while everyone else...with whom they disagree, should be ignored.
FJ, GABBY, and several other Logrolling members here are nothing but the troll-like hypocrites they always feel so willing to accuse others of being. It's nothing but another form of excuse...more often called Lies.
So. As you can see. Their sole intention is to create endless hate, and discontent that will generate anger...and eventually cause them to declare their own WORTHLESSNESS.
Excuse me? Did you just accuse me of being troll-like and hypocritical in a thread and issue in which I haven't posted? the only thing that's plain to be seen is your dismal use of punctuation being analogous to the tip of an iceberg of idiocy that defines your essence. FYI, when using a word processing program, the green underlined parts DO NOT mean go ahead with it.

[jimnyc]

What did he say exactly? With all the banter across intrawebs, I've yet to see what is allegedly criminal speech. It seems premature I draw conclusions without the facts.

I would tend to agree. But I read quite a few stories prior to this arrest, and the bit of reasoning they have given was not good enough to support an arrest, at least here, IMO:


Four men in England have been either arrested or warned after making anti-Muslim comments on Facebook and Twitter in response to the killing of a British soldier.

Benjamin Flatters, 22, was arrested by Lincolnshire Police after authorities were alerted he had made racist or anti-religious statements on Facebook, the Daily Mail reports.

Another man was visited by authorities and warned about his communications on social media, a spokesman for Lincolnshire Police said.

In Bristol, a 23-year-old and a 22-year-old each were held under the Public Order Act, the Daily Mail reported. Both were held under suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. The pair were taken from separate addresses in the middle of the night.

Avon and Somerset Police were contacted on Wednesday about comments on Twitter, said police spokesman Ed Yaxley.

"These comments were directed against a section of our community," Yaxley said. "Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Britain-police-Muslims-arrests/2013/05/26/id/506441

I don't know about others FB walls/feeds - but I'm forever seeing religious, anti religious & racist comments. Doesn't mean I always agree with them, but I don't think the people posting them should be arrested either. In this case, I would be more curious as to what anti-religious and racist comments specifically. But short of a threat, there shouldn't be involvement of authorities, IMO. And if there was a threat of sorts, whoever wrote articles like the one above, deserve to be arrested too, as nothing about any threat is written.


Eleven people have been arrested around Britain for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Twitter following the brutal killing in Woolwich on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330809/Lee-Rigby-death-11-people-UK-arrested-making-racist-anti-religious-comments-online-British-soldiers-death.html#ixzz2WwhxNw2B
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)




Four men in England have been either arrested or warned after making anti-Muslim comments on Facebook and Twitter in response to the killing of a British soldier.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxworld.com/Newsfront/Britain-police-Muslims-arrests/2013/05/26/id/506441#ixzz2Wwi7eyT0

[jimnyc]

Here is some more:


Two men have been arrested for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter after the murder of a British soldier. MailOnline understands the pair had tweeted using inflammatory language and were trying to organise an anti-Muslim protest in Bristol following the execution of Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, in Woolwich two days ago. Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were of a racist or anti-religious nature.


Three UK men were arrested in late night pickups by police for making comments on Facebook and Twitter of an allegedly racist, anti-Islamic nature, reports Business Insider. Authorities acted on complaints by unknown individuals offended by the comments, and cited the country's Public Order Act's prohibition on "inciting racial or religious hatred."

I think this last one sums it up, that it is for lamely making a racist and anti-islamic post. Such stuff may not be liked, but shouldn't be stopped either, IMO. But it's the Muslims who have long demanded penalties for simple insults and such, and of course MUCH more harsh penalties for those who insult Islam. But it would appear to be the countries "Public Order Act's prohibition on "inciting racial or religious hatred."" that has brought the charges. Here's a snippet of that:


Parts 3 and 3A- Racial hatred etc.

Part 3 of the Act creates offences of use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18), publishing or distributing written material (section 19), public performance of a play (section 20), distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21), or broadcasting (section 22), if the act is intended to stir up racial hatred, or possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23).

Part 3A was created by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 with the insertion of new sections 29A to 29N. This part created new offences for acts intended to stir up religious hatred. Sections 29B to 29N are to be further amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 when the relevant parts of that act come into force. These further amendments will extend Part 3A to cover intent to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation (to be defined in new section 29AB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986

I don't think I like this, and would be rather pissed if they tried to implement this here. It's about 3 seconds shy of implementing "blasphemy" laws which is also already illegal in the majority of the Islamic world. I totally understand the "yell fire in a theater" thing, but this is going from public interest and harm, over to stopping people from speaking their minds, even if insulting.

Funny thing is, they arrest these guys for making comments on social media. What about what they see people stating/writing while in public? Shouldn't they arrest them too? Seems like one side is protected from being insulted, while another gets to speak up:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xbfF84R7X-8/S_12uySWj6I/AAAAAAAAAyc/BuAauRWJoUk/s1600/muslims.jpg

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/tm5092e9e2.jpg

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/thumb/3/30/Images-cfiv-0004.jpg/275px-Images-cfiv-0004.jpg

http://static0.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/600-1/photos/1304745196-muslims-against-crusades-protest-outside-us-embassy--london_682341.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img849/9752/pav7.jpg

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/115666.jpg

I'm too lazy this second to keep finding images, but I assure you, I could find TONS more of examples, and then MILLIONS more of examples where they verbalized the same and worse in the UK.

[aboutime]

What did he say exactly? With all the banter across intrawebs, I've yet to see what is allegedly criminal speech. It seems premature I draw conclusions without the facts.

Excuse me? Did you just accuse me of being troll-like and hypocritical in a thread and issue in which I haven't posted? the only thing that's plain to be seen is your dismal use of punctuation being analogous to the tip of an iceberg of idiocy that defines your essence. FYI, when using a word processing program, the green underlined parts DO NOT mean go ahead with it.


NO! I'm tired of listening to all the excuses. And, if you dislike my punctuation, grammar, spelling, or anything else here.

I don't give a crap. You mean nothing to me. Unless....you agree to pay all of my bills until the day I die. Then..and only then. Will I listen, or take anything you say...seriously.

[fj1200]

Too bad your version of Truth is nothing but the constantly repeated, brainwashed kind. While the truth I present here is Proven to be factual.
Sounds like YOU have the problem. Not me.

Example please?

[fj1200]

NO! I'm tired of listening to all the excuses. And, if you dislike my punctuation, grammar, spelling, or anything else here.

I don't give a crap. You mean nothing to me. Unless....you agree to pay all of my bills until the day I die. Then..and only then. Will I listen, or take anything you say...seriously.

Reminds me of the joke where the woman will sleep with someone for a million dollars; The only discussion on selling oneself is price.

[fj1200]

:goodposting: Nicely put. I was just thinking how tiresome all this is.

FJ is, by now, probably near the tipping-point I've seen before, from semi-relevance to outright incessant put-downs. I see he's already reverted to the ridiculous 'crossings-out' stage, even though my criticism of it exposed it for what it was.

Tipping point? The only tipping point I see is you and the knucklehead krew only having the temerity to argue with me by talking to each other; such bravery that. And of course I know you don't like me crossing out your blather because it tends to expose your posts for what they are. Besides I know you're fighting an uphill battle when you have to parse my post sentence by sentence as below, a two paragraph post btw:


... Well ... YES. How nice that you realised that eventually.

Desperation is noted: I bolded only the reference to me buried in his ignorance.


Don't foist your own failings upon me, as though they are instead mine. That you need to do so is understood, however ...

Asking a valid question at the lack of your comprehension skills is offensive to you? Noted.


... simultaneously concentrating on your own ego, whilst going in for your bog-standard disdain tactic. Yes, I've already referred to your trickery.

Trickery? :laugh: Are all Brits this fragile in their logic?


See what I mean ?

No. After your having to parse a post like this to try and grab some sort of "win" is pretty sad.


Correction: my ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the necessity of Governmental power, for those times when realism demands its application.

You are way past the acknowledgement of governmental power when you argue torture has roots in justice. But your argument for the power of the State over the individual is noted.

[fj1200]

Ah, FJ, I see you're back to the crossings-out ! Felt a need for them, did you ?

Yes, your reliance on the "leftie" crutch deserves it. I see below that you are unable to have an intelligent conversation with out relying on it.


H'm. I'm not sure that this long list of yours leaves you with anything much at all !

But what if one of those countries harbouring Al Qaeda happens to be their chief training base of operations ? Or, an important strategic centre from which many future attacks will emanate ?

What if Al Qaeda gets a nuke one day, and a territory you've preferred not to tackle just happens to be where a nuke attack on America originates from ?

As for these 'citizens' you refer to, tell me, are they, or are they not, your enemies, 'citizens' who really don't deserve such a status ?

And I've seen from the above that you've gone back, once more, to 'let's defend a terrorist' mode. Defend from the reality that they're not even human, so that you can confer on them 'rights' they couldn't possibly either have earned, or even begin to relate to ...

Typical Leftie fayre, that ... I've heard these stances, time and again, from Left-wing sellout types. So very tiresome.

There is plenty in there that allows for defense of country and state; That you are unable to think of anything that isn't based on a huge expansion of the State's power over the individual is consistent in your rationale.

The rest of the above rests on strawman. Actions taken against those who would do us harm is something that should be done strategically when possible. And citizens who wish harm are still nonetheless citizens and are afforded Constitutional protections. Lastly, do you want to lose the terrorist debate again? You can just resurrect the other thread if so because I haven't defended terrorists; just stated a fact that you ignore.


Have you ever tried to vary these tactics of yours ?

No. My posts are based on fact and logic. Give it a try, it's fun.


I could argue these mini-points endlessly. How about, instead, realising that if your enemy ever won out over you - say, if they ever managed their 'worldwide Caliphate' they dream of - you'd see the end of anything bearing the remotest resemblance to Western values and freedoms, much less American ones.

Oh, and I'd watch out for any kids you may have, if I were you. That Mohammed pervert left a lasting impression ....

No you can't, not with any success anyway. If you could you wouldn't have to rely on what came after the bold. The point being that you are unable to engage in conversation about terrorists without reference to your hatred of Islam and Muslims.


Then how come other, highly worthy Conservatives, recognise me as one of their own ?

And what you call a 'Leftie crutch' is nothing more than a reminder of a truth you keep illustrating. You REALLY don't like being reminded of it, do you ?

You can continue to remind me of your use of the crutch; it tells me more of your willful ignorance. Now, these other conservatives having to pump you up; are they your standard knucklehead fluffing krew that engage in your groupthink? Or are they other board members who have also acknowledged my conservatism. It's that last part that prove your willful ignorance, that and your inability to point out my "leftie" positions.

[Drummond]

FJ, what was it I posted before ? Wasn't it ....


FJ is, by now, probably near the tipping-point I've seen before, from semi-relevance to outright incessant put-downs.'
Well, your response is amusing ! I simply ask: doesn't what I quote below from you prove that I had a point ???


Tipping point? The only tipping point I see is you and the knucklehead krew only having the temerity to argue with me by talking to each other; such bravery that. And of course I know you don't like me crossing out your blather because it tends to expose your posts for what they are. Besides I know you're fighting an uphill battle when you have to parse my post sentence by sentence as below, a two paragraph post btw:


Desperation is noted: I bolded only the reference to me buried in his ignorance.


Asking a valid question at the lack of your comprehension skills is offensive to you? Noted.


Trickery? :laugh: Are all Brits this fragile in their logic?


No. After your having to parse a post like this to try and grab some sort of "win" is pretty sad.


You are way past the acknowledgement of governmental power when you argue torture has roots in justice. But your argument for the power of the State over the individual is noted.

OK, it's not 'incessant', I'll give you that. But then, I did suggest that you were NEAR the tipping-point ...

Tell you what, FJ. You try cleaning up your act - if, in fact, you can - and we'll debate again.

[fj1200]

FJ, what was it I posted before ? Wasn't it ....


Well, your response is amusing ! I simply ask: doesn't what I quote below from you prove that I had a point ???



OK, it's not 'incessant', I'll give you that. But then, I did suggest that you were NEAR the tipping-point ...

Tell you what, FJ. You try cleaning up your act - if, in fact, you can - and we'll debate again.

Try cleaning up my act? :laugh: You're funny. I'm sure post #31 summed up your desperation quite nicely. Try debating with truth and logic next time. Unless you're unable to do so without your crutch.

[aboutime]

FJ, what was it I posted before ? Wasn't it ....


Well, your response is amusing ! I simply ask: doesn't what I quote below from you prove that I had a point ???



OK, it's not 'incessant', I'll give you that. But then, I did suggest that you were NEAR the tipping-point ...

Tell you what, FJ. You try cleaning up your act - if, in fact, you can - and we'll debate again.


Sir Drummond. Once again. FJ proves to all of us what the "FJ" actually stands for. As we say here "F'in Joke, Jackass, Jerk" applies.

[fj1200]

Sir Drummond. Once again. FJ proves to all of us what the "FJ" actually stands for. As we say here "F'in Joke, Jackass, Jerk" applies.


Tell you what, FJ. You try cleaning up your act - if, in fact, you can - and we'll debate again.

Hey drummond, are you going to call out your buddy and ask him to clean up his act? I'm guessing not. He is one of your "conservative" buddies right?

[aboutime]

Hey drummond, are you going to call out your buddy and ask him to clean up his act? I'm guessing not. He is one of your "conservative" buddies right?


Why does Sir Drummond need to say anything, or respond about being told the TRUTH about you FJ?

Come to think of it. How bout....we call you out for being Everything "FJ" stands for?

[fj1200]

Why does Sir Drummond need to say anything, or respond about being told the TRUTH about you FJ?

You're right, he doesn't need to say anything. His double standards speak for themselves.


Come to think of it. How bout....we call you out for being Everything "FJ" stands for?

You attempt to call out; You fail at being able to prove anything; over and over....

[aboutime]

You're right, he doesn't need to say anything. His double standards speak for themselves.



You attempt to call out; You fail at being able to prove anything; over and over....


If any of what you said above was true. Why then, would you feel any need to come here to defend yourself????

[fj1200]

If any of what you said above was true. Why then, would you feel any need to come here to defend yourself????

You might be right; his double standards is true, your failure is true...

My apologies for giving you the opportunity to back up your statements; my mistake. I won't overestimate your abilities again.

[aboutime]

You might be right; his double standards is true, your failure is true...

My apologies for giving you the opportunity to back up your statements; my mistake. I won't overestimate your abilities again.


Wow "FJ". Bet you really think you've Impressed yourself with that line above. Good for you, and Thank you for showing all of us how SMART you only THINK you are.

[Drummond]

Hey drummond, are you going to call out your buddy and ask him to clean up his act? I'm guessing not. He is one of your "conservative" buddies right?

While you're busily having a go at 'Aboutime', and yet somehow believing in the process (a fine display of double standards, this !) that you should be exonerated from blame for the tactics YOU use (.. and which I've illustrated) ... you might like to ponder the fact that Aboutime doesn't argue for the sake of egotism.

Ask yourself how true this is of YOU.

From another of your replies, you mention my post #31. OK - fine. I'm quoting from it, with this ...



Don't foist your own failings upon me, as though they are instead mine.
I considered it fine advice. I still do. But of course, you'll never heed it.

[fj1200]

While you're busily having a go at 'Aboutime', and yet somehow believing in the process (a fine display of double standards, this !) that you should be exonerated from blame for the tactics YOU use (.. and which I've illustrated) ... you might like to ponder the fact that Aboutime doesn't argue for the sake of egotism.

Ask yourself how true this is of YOU.

Ah, the ego bit again; Another crutch upon which you rely. I would simply like to engage in debate here as the site name would imply, that I get involved in a spat here and there is just a byproduct of disagreement.

And if you could fill me in on why he argues because honestly I'm pretty sure it's to hear the clicky-clacky of his keyboard.


From another of your replies, you mention my post #31. OK - fine. I'm quoting from it, with this ...

I considered it fine advice. I still do. But of course, you'll never heed it.

Advice from you is properly filed given your penchant for double standards.

[Drummond]

Ah, the ego bit again; Another crutch upon which you rely. I would simply like to engage in debate here as the site name would imply, that I get involved in a spat here and there is just a byproduct of disagreement.

And if you could fill me in on why he argues because honestly I'm pretty sure it's to hear the clicky-clacky of his keyboard.



Advice from you is properly filed given your penchant for double standards.

It doesn't much matter whether I label you an egotist or not. Your posts speak for you, just as they are. But really .. to dismiss truths spoken about you as 'crutches', well .. isn't that tactic of your becoming a tad worn out ?

If I call you a 'Leftie', you tell me that this is a 'crutch' of mine. But, you offer arguments here which Lefties would be proud to identify with. I highlight this ... and I'm using a 'crutch'. Yeah, sure ...

You say you'd simply like to engage in debate. But, guess what ? People involved in debate take divergent positions .. such is the very nature of debate. But when things get difficult .. the jibes, the put-downs, the showy crossings-out, all of this surfaces from you. Not many posts back, I proved that - to the extent it even needed 'proving'.

Debate honestly. That's what I say.

But I'm wasting my time. I really can't be bothered.

[aboutime]

It doesn't much matter whether I label you an egotist or not. Your posts speak for you, just as they are. But really .. to dismiss truths spoken about you as 'crutches', well .. isn't that tactic of your becoming a tad worn out ?

If I call you a 'Leftie', you tell me that this is a 'crutch' of mine. But, you offer arguments here which Lefties would be proud to identify with. I highlight this ... and I'm using a 'crutch'. Yeah, sure ...

You say you'd simply like to engage in debate. But, guess what ? People involved in debate take divergent positions .. such is the very nature of debate. But when things get difficult .. the jibes, the put-downs, the showy crossings-out, all of this surfaces from you. Not many posts back, I proved that - to the extent it even needed 'proving'.

Debate honestly. That's what I say.

But I'm wasting my time. I really can't be bothered.


Sir Drummond. 'FJ" has been using the old, standard Liberal, Democrat techniques of twisting words around to better his own ego. Sad thing is. The jealousy he exposes of his own needs to always be right, and have that LAST WORD. Just doesn't work when someone relies upon, and uses false contextual reasons to PAT ONE'S SELF ON THE BACK..impressing one person....who speaks it.

[fj1200]

It doesn't much matter whether I label you an egotist or not. Your posts speak for you, just as they are. But really .. to dismiss truths spoken about you as 'crutches', well .. isn't that tactic of your becoming a tad worn out ?

If I call you a 'Leftie', you tell me that this is a 'crutch' of mine. But, you offer arguments here which Lefties would be proud to identify with. I highlight this ... and I'm using a 'crutch'. Yeah, sure ...

You say you'd simply like to engage in debate. But, guess what ? People involved in debate take divergent positions .. such is the very nature of debate. But when things get difficult .. the jibes, the put-downs, the showy crossings-out, all of this surfaces from you. Not many posts back, I proved that - to the extent it even needed 'proving'.

Debate honestly. That's what I say.

But I'm wasting my time.

You're right, it doesn't matter what you label me because you will continue with the labels to the exclusion of actual evidence to your charge; that is why it is the crutch upon which you rely. That you think that honoring the natural rights of individuals is a "leftie" position is just sad. Your other arguments are even lower than that.

If you could open your mind for just a moment; anything that I do is largely in response to what comes my way. For example, your blathering on about "leftie" and "ego" is going to result in me "editing" and thusly, you complaining. If you don't like it then, as I said before, raise your game.

You are wasting your time because I'm not sure you have it in you. Because, again, I know your fighting uphill when you need to make the whole process about me... which might be the source of your "ego" claim; think about it. ;)

[fj1200]

Sir Drummond. 'FJ" has been using the old, standard Liberal, Democrat techniques of twisting words around to better his own ego.

Example? Oh wait...


My apologies for giving you the opportunity to back up your statements; my mistake. I won't overestimate your abilities again.

... I forget myself.

[aboutime]

<strike> "F J"</strike>

[fj1200]

<strike> "F J"</strike>

:thumb: There you go. It's not hard, it's fun, and shouldn't be the cause of some kerfuffle.