Jump to content

What is wrong with America

Red Alert

By Red Alert
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, benjii said:

I'd never heard of him until yesterday so I'm being led by you here. 

Moral of the story: don't be an ally of a thieving, lying, racist, corrupt, rapist.

I have read earlier today that Kirk has been critical of the Epstein cover-up, so perhaps, ironically, they were just about to fall out.

What's Prince Andrew got to do with anything?  Allegedly.

  • Haha 1
Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, benjii said:

I'd never heard of him until yesterday so I'm being led by you here. 

Moral of the story: don't be an ally of a thieving, lying, racist, corrupt, rapist.

I have read earlier today that Kirk has been critical of the Epstein cover-up, so perhaps, ironically, they were just about to fall out.

Hilary Clinton shitting herself about Bill.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That sounds a bit like you're blaming him for his assassination I assume you don't mean that.

"Blame" isn't the right word.

Clearly the more you associate yourself prominently with someone who politicises hate for his own benefit and has zero care for the dignity and rights of people he perceives as against him then I'm sure you bring the odds down.

Associating with the mafia is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

 

  • Like 4
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

What's Prince Andrew got to do with anything?  Allegedly.

Case in point, viz. Epstein's "suicide".

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

Hilary Clinton shitting herself about Bill.

Ha! Luckily for him, blowjob Bill predates the social media age so just had to ride out the TV news cycle.

She probably was shitting it a bit when Trump campaigned on a mandate to "lock her up", though. 

  • Haha 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, benjii said:

"Blame" isn't the right word.

Clearly the more you associate yourself prominently with someone who politicises hate for his own benefit and has zero care for the dignity and rights of people he perceives as against him then I'm sure you bring the odds down.

Associating with the mafia is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

 

So he brought it on himself?

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It pisses me off when he adds a laughing emoji on one I've put. It's like some horrible endorsement.

I take it as a badge of honour, and a mark of his acceptance that I have the superior intellect.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RedArmy said:

It’s what happens when the left throw out terms like racist, fascist and nazi almost willy nilly. 
 

As opposed to the BS spouted by Trump and his acolytes concerning anybody to the left of Attilla the Hun.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

He does?!

I've got to remember the extra "I" in "Benjii" and stopping thinking the posts are coming from...

image.jpeg.0f22213fd7e52b684f6c47c053ff5eb0.jpeg

This is infinitely preferable to what I imagine when reading some people's posts, so I'll take it!

Edited by benjii
  • Haha 2
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So he brought it on himself?

His career choice and associations increased the risk.

I will provide examples:

- Donald Trump: high risk

- Ainsley Harriott: low risk.

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, benjii said:

His career choice and associations increased the risk.

I will provide examples:

- Donald Trump: high risk

- Ainsley Harriott: low risk.

A SaintsWeb search on Google shows thread titles of...

"If I see another cooking programme, I'll go postal!"

and

"Extremes you'd go to, to see more of Nigella"

Undermining your risk assessment.

Bad Benjii! Bad! 🙂

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, benjii said:

His career choice and associations increased the risk.

I will provide examples:

- Donald Trump: high risk

- Ainsley Harriott: low risk.

What's your thoughts on the fact that aligning yourself with a controversial high profile figure puts you at genuine risk in America of being shot and killed?

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is anyone able to summarise what is wrong with America?

Guns and liberal drug policies for starters

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Guns and liberal drug policies for starters

I'm not sure entire neighbourhoods off their face on fent is really a 'liberal policy' as such.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is anyone able to summarise what is wrong with America?

Their belief that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and immutable, and their misconception that it's text grants them an inalienable right to stockpile lethal firearms at home.

  • Like 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I'm not sure entire neighbourhoods off their face on fent is really a 'liberal policy' as such.

I wasn’t making a political point I was just saying that the proliferation of drugs is a big issue particularly if you go to lots of American cities now. The sad thing is that lots of people of fent were legitimately introduced to it

Edited by Sir Ralph
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

What's your thoughts on the fact that aligning yourself with a controversial high profile figure puts you at genuine risk in America of being shot and killed?

Well, it's probably still lower risk, overall, than being a poor person there, so you've got to weigh up the pros and cons. These folk tend to monetise their platforms quite well.

Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Despite having issues, it's a lot less "wrong" than plenty of other countries.

Pre-2020 I’d have agreed, but after the insurrection attempt, looking at how Covid ran through their health system, especially in GOP states, and overturning of Roe Vs Wade it’s more subjective now on what people’s own political outlooks are.

Parts of it are still in decent shape but parts of it, especially in the south, can be worse than many middle income countries around the world. 

  • Like 2
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted

Somebody observed this morning - the difference between the peoples reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death and the that took place after George Floyd’s death. One peaceful (so far) the other widespread disorder. 

  • Like 2
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Somebody observed this morning - the difference between the peoples reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death and the that took place after George Floyd’s death. One peaceful (so far) the other widespread disorder. 

George Floyd was an ordinary citizen, albeit with a lengthy criminal record, who was summarily executed by an over-zealous (at best) police officer. Charlie Kirk was a prominent conservative activist who was assassinated by an as yet unidentified gunman for as yet unknown reasons.

How are the two situations even remotely comparable?

  • Like 3
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

George Floyd was an ordinary citizen, albeit with a lengthy criminal record, who was summarily executed by an over-zealous (at best) police officer. Charlie Kirk was a prominent conservative activist who was assassinated by an as yet unidentified gunman for as yet unknown reasons.

How are the two situations even remotely comparable?

Does live the sword die by the sword not apply in this case then?

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Somebody observed this morning - the difference between the peoples reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death and the that took place after George Floyd’s death. One peaceful (so far) the other widespread disorder. 

Fucking hell. The fact that you can post that shows you in such a poor light. And particularly dim

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Does live the sword die by the sword not apply in this case then?

Yeah identical. Only difference is skin colour eh

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah identical. Only difference is skin colour eh

Didnt say that did i. Sheaf dismissed Kirks murder as live by the sword die by the sword and only surprise is more of these dont happen. But that does apply to George Floyd, no?

im curious to know why one senseless murder is a moral outrage the other is just “oh well luckily it doesn’t happen more”

Edited by Turkish
  • Like 3
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Just now, hypochondriac said:

His career choices and associations increased the risk.

Does being a career criminal not increase the risk?

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, whelk said:

Fucking hell. The fact that you can post that shows you in such a poor light. And particularly dim

I’m unclear as to why that shows me in a poor light and dim. Please explain. They are probably to two most high profile murders in recent years in the US and the reaction to both has been markedly different from a public disorder perspective(I hasten to add to date). Neither we justified and both terrible. I genuinely fail to see how that is a controversial point other than you disagree with the point

Edited by Sir Ralph
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m unclear as to why that shows me in a poor light and dim. Please explain. They are probably to two most high profile murders in recent years in the US.

The second sentence sums it up nicely. The Floyd case wasn't murder as it wasn't pre-meditated. You seem to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge that distinction.

It's obvious, given your posting history, that you are trying to compare the situations in order to show that the reaction from the right is more restrained than that of the left and thus give you the moral high ground. But the two scenarios are in no way alike.

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The second sentence sums it up nicely. The Floyd case wasn't murder as it wasn't pre-meditated. You seem to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge that distinction.

It's obvious, given your posting history, that you are trying to compare the situations in order to show that the reaction from the right is more restrained than that of the left and thus give you the moral high ground. But the two scenarios are in no way alike.

Why does it explain a different reaction from the public?

if you want to get technical the officer in the George Floyd case were charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder so my statement was factually correct

Edited by Sir Ralph
  • Haha 1
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Why does it explain a different reaction from the public?

Because we still don't know who killed Kirk and why, so there is nothing for that public to direct their anger towards yet. Surely you can see that?

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Because we still don't know who killed Kirk and why, so there is nothing for that public to direct their anger towards yet. Surely you can see that?

Ok I take your point. I think that based on the evidence to date regarding inscriptions on bullets etc and the fact the Kirk was a prominent conservative that the motivation for the killing is likely to be political. I genuinely hope the right don’t react with public disorder . Let’s see what happens then - I may be proved wrong and made to look silly (again)

However the point about whether it was pre meditated or not is neither here nor there in the context of the point made.

Edited by Sir Ralph
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Why does it explain a different reaction from the public?

if you want to get technical the officer in the George Floyd case were charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder so my statement was factually correct

The George Floyd stuff was largely fuelled by anti-authoritarian sentiments, much like many of the current anti-Israel protests, rather than any specific moral objections. In this country the 2011 riots fell under basically the same umbrella.

  • Like 1
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok I take your point. I think that based on the evidence to date regarding inscriptions on bullets etc and the fact the Kirk was a prominent conservative that the motivation for the killing is likely to be political. I genuinely hope the right don’t react with public disorder . Let’s see what happens then - I may be proved wrong and made to look silly (again)

However the point about whether it was pre meditated or not is neither here nor there in the context of the point made.

I've seen your edit and hold my hands up to that, I was mis-remembering because I thought the officer(s) in the Floyd case were charged with Manslaughter, not murder.

Even so, the Floyd case was used by BLM to highlight excessive police violence towards black minorities and it sparked widespread protests about police brutality and bias in the justice system (as black people are six times more likely to be killed by on-duty officers in the US than white people are). The majority of those protests were overall peaceful in nature, but many were also blighted by large numbers of people using them as an excuse for violent clashes with the police, and it's those ones that made all the headlines.

Let's assume that the likely reason for Kirk's shooting turns out to be correct and the shooting was politically motivated by an unhinged individual. Who would any subsequent protests be aimed at? You can't protest against institutional injustice when we're talking about an individual acting on his own. And let's face it, the American right aren't going to go marching in the streets and starting riots to demand stronger gun control laws to ensure that it never happens again, are they. In Kirk's own words, these incidents are an unfortunate necessity to maintain the second amendment. So they would be protesting against the killing of a man they all agreed with by fundamentally disagreeing with him. 

Edited by Sheaf Saint
  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m unclear as to why that shows me in a poor light and dim. Please explain. They are probably to two most high profile murders in recent years in the US and the reaction to both has been markedly different from a public disorder perspective(I hasten to add to date). Neither we justified and both terrible. I genuinely fail to see how that is a controversial point other than you disagree with the point

 Can you not understand the outrage was because the police are meant to protect not kill?

if my son got beaten up by a gang of thugs or was just stopped by police and given a kicking by them the two incidents would be directly comparable?  Do you not expect more from the police than just any criminal. If someone just shot George Floyd in the head very few would care, it was about the perpetrators more than the victim although skin colour was significant.

As I said yesterday I despair that people want to put a righteousness on either left or right to such an evil act.

Edited by whelk
  • Like 2
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

 Can you not understand the outrage was because the police are meant to protect not kill?

if my son got beaten up by a gang of thugs or was just stopped by police and given a kicking by them the two incidents would be directly comparable?  Do you not expect more from the police than just any criminal. If someone just shot George Floyd in the head very few would care, it was about the perpetrators more than the victim although skin colour was significant.

As I said yesterday I despair that people want to put a righteousness on either left or right to such an evil act.

Agreed. You can bet your life if it had been a figure on the left gunned down you'd be getting the same twattish responses from some on the other side. It's wrong and it doesn't matter what the politics of the person is. 

We can all agree that shit like this should be condemmed.

 

20250912_130805.jpg

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, benjii said:

Seems like someone has been caught, so, third time lucky, hopefully.

Must have been Kash Patel flying into Utah to assist the agents in the ground that did it

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...