What is wrong with America

[SarniaSaint]

The Second Amendment is about national security when an oppressor appears on the border, not about every man jack being armed on a day to day basis.

 

Not how the Supreme Court ruled.............unless you think that any one gives a f*ck about what the brits think HTH

[SarniaSaint]

The Police do not have a 'right' to shoot anyone, that is what we Brits have a problem with. If the police were not armed many INNOCENT people would still be alive.

 

So you have a problem with cops being armed!!! a shake my head moment from me........'evenin all'

[SarniaSaint]

Watch and learn: it's very short but says it all about how deeply ingrained is anti-black sentiment in US culture. You won't, though, will you - you prefer to cling to a comfort blanket of profound ignorance.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2015/jun/19/jon-stewart-daily-show-charleston-shooting

 

Interesting that there's not a word of condemnation from you about this. I suppose you approve of the fact that the family of a white supremacist gave him a .45 handgun for his 21st birthday. You clearly don't know much about weaponry, so keep this in mind: weapons such as this have one purpose and one purpose only: to kill people. And he got his heart's desire - to kill black people.

 

WOW another way over the top post from you

Watch and learn!!!! who the f*ck do you think you are to say that to me eh??

and BTW I did condemn the murders............and obviously you know f*ck all about guns.......

 

Now unless you have anything other than brit media hysteria to add ............just F*cking Disappear

[SarniaSaint]

 

Not with those temps 21 in Sarnia = cold ............they are real measurement Fahrenheit LOL

[SarniaSaint]

There is the potential for such a good discussion here but any reasonable statement is shot down and derided by the Canadian. There is a lot wrong with this country but there is a lot right with it too. Just as there is with Britain, Canada and any other country you care to mention.

 

Regarding what Verbal has said, he has a point. I have been stunned by comments made, by otherwise sensible and sane people, about the President. However, I truly believe that my children (who are teenagers) are color blind when it comes to skin and I think the vast majority of their friends are too. There are no easy answers to the gun issue because it is so ingrained in the culture. Politicians rarely dare to speak out about it because they will be targeted for defeat in the next election.

 

Finally a sensible post!!!...............now you live in Georgia which is in the South ...I live 2 miles from the Michigan border and there is no blatant racism there and go to New England every year none there either..........

I agree about the color blind bit my son-in law is from Afghanistan..........

 

However I cant agree with Verbal as he is basing his opinion on what he reads in the uk press that only applies to your part of the continent in the latest rant from him.........maybe he don't realize how large and diverse North America is

[SarniaSaint]

No, no, we have chip and pin cards. I have two - well, one is a chip card, it has no PIN. And when I used them in England, a couple of months ago, I still had to sign, even with the one I had a PIN for.

 

I've never seen a chip card here yet. And every service I use still comes via overhead lines that crap out every time there is anything but perfect weather.

It's only down to commercial viability, but it keeps much of the US in the third world.

 

Only have chip and pin cards here in Canada.......been like that for a few years which is great ........got scammed once at a gas station outside Halifax NS International Airport for $3200........ got the money credited back

 

I am based in the UK but have a corporate credit card from Bank of America. It has no chip and pin and sometimes cant be used here. It also frequently gets stopped by BoA anti fraud for 'activity abroad' despite them knowing my home base is the UK, but that s another story.

[SarniaSaint]

That's what I find so amazing about the whole situation over there. The democratically elected government seem powerless to even try to do anything about the whole mess.

 

I don't want to drag up the whole dumb yank stereotype again but **** me it's not rocket science, if less people have access to guns less people will die. They either don't give a sh!t, are too thick to grasp the concept or there is something seriously wrong with the democratic system which means the will of the people is ignored.

 

Listen......... it wont happen although there are restrictions on what type of firearm you can purchase or sell.......i.e high powered automatics........and when you have an amnesty the good guys hand theirs in the bad guys keep them.......that's what happened in Canada so the good guys keep them .........same as Canada

[SarniaSaint]

This is a tricky one isn't it? About the kid that shot up the church. Sarnia won't thank me for this but he WAS pictured wearing the flags of Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's Rhodesia. Now, I know a lot about Smith's Rhodesia (The second group of rebellious Anglo farmers to unilaterally declare independence from the crown...whilst simultainiously crap on the lives of the blacks who they saw simply as good and cheap labour). I think it's a great big white elephant that can't be sorted. They quasi-worship men who were very much like Smith (duplicitous in that they wanted freedom and liberation whilst denying that to the native population the blacks...claiming that every man is equal but some simply are not men so they can't be) and whilst yes,they have a black man in office it has never healed that wound of how the country was founded. I mean, if I was an African American, it would certainly slightly rancour on me that I had to stare at the photos of men who would open enslave my ancestors.

 

I'm just trying to not touch on gun control as it is a big issue but I think realising that something like a truth and reconciliation thing has to happen and come to the understanding that the founders of the country were not infallible, they started this road of discrimination (most were Virginian slave traders) and as soon as that happens I think it might at least help the situation a bit because mental kids like this, whilst on top of being a souther zealot clearly, by his 2 flags seemed to think that treating people as nothing because of the colour of their skin is somehow right and I speculate it drives at the very heart of the nation itself. An unspoken problem if you will.

 

OK

#1 - I am not a racist

#2 - wasn't the South Africa and Southern Rhodesia problem created by the UK

#3 - strange how Obama was voted president when the majority of the USA is white............I think he won all of the Eastern Seaboard states including SC

#4 - as a Canadian I welcomed that he won in 2008 and 2012

#5 - however .... he has been a disappointment not because of his color

#6 - remember that the USA was a British Colony and the slaves were brought there by the British so they were just continuing what went before when they got rid of the crown........something that you all sem to forget.

[SarniaSaint]

Well said.

 

Don't think so IMO

[SarniaSaint]

I dare that Canadian dimwit to endorse this sentiment. That the real villain, in the NRA's eyes, is not the slack-jawed piece of **** who pulled the trigger, but the black pastor whom he murdered, who didn't want guns in his church. It is as deeply racist as the attack itself. The overwhelmingly white-dominated NRA is the latter-day Ku Klux Klan - spewing out a slight variant on the old message: those damned ignorant blacks brought this on themselves.

 

Dare all you like..........so only whites have guns and the blacks don't!!! you are outta your tree.......and you call me a dimwit LOL ..........just FO you bring nothing to the debate.......

[SO16_Saint]

So various estimates..........I assume your uk is factual from the gov ........well they do monitor you 24/7.............

 

Nice one Chappies

What the f*ck are you banging on about.

 

You turn a statement about the number of life threatening weapons in circulation in the US in to something wholly unrelated because you know you have no come back of merit.

 

Owning guns is not restricted to blacks or whites, stupidity it seems does not discriminate between race.

 

The right to bear arms (or however its worded) is antiquated and so out of date it's not funny, and laws should have been passed (in the US, UK, everywhere) to ban them.

[badgerx16]

So you have a problem with cops being armed!!! a shake my head moment from me........'evenin all'

I have a problem with so many of them being armed. What is YOUR problem with that ?

[badgerx16]

Dare all you like..........so only whites have guns and the blacks don't!!! you are outta your tree.......and you call me a dimwit LOL ..........just FO you bring nothing to the debate.......

Is this meant to be a coherent and structured response to Verbal's post, or did you just dribble on your keyboard ?

[Verbal]

Dare all you like..........so only whites have guns and the blacks don't!!! you are outta your tree.......and you call me a dimwit LOL ..........just FO you bring nothing to the debate.......

 

I've realised you're not replying to anything. You're just like a really bad, amateurish tagger, vandalising a thread which has otherwise raised and discussed some serious issues, simply because you don't know how else to behave.

 

As for the title and subject of the thread, I notice Obama himself raised that very same question yesterday: what the hell is wrong with America that this happens FAR more frequently than anywhere else in the developed world?

 

So let's put my theory to the test. Let's see if you are capable of a yes or no answer. Remember, the options are: Yes and No. Got it?

 

Do you, or do you not, endorse the NRA's contention that the killings would have been avoided had the church paster armed his congregation, and that he was therefore at fault for being 'political' about gun control?

 

Don't vandalise; give an intelligible response. For once.

[Polaroid Saint]

Interesting Poll (please note this is satire at its most brutally brilliant).

 

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/06/19/poll-what-is-your-favourite-american-shooting-so-far-this-year/

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[JackFrost]

Has anyone worked out who SarniaSaint is yet?

[Hockey_saint]

OK

#1 - I am not a racist

#2 - wasn't the South Africa and Southern Rhodesia problem created by the UK

#3 - strange how Obama was voted president when the majority of the USA is white............I think he won all of the Eastern Seaboard states including SC

#4 - as a Canadian I welcomed that he won in 2008 and 2012

#5 - however .... he has been a disappointment not because of his color

#6 - remember that the USA was a British Colony and the slaves were brought there by the British so they were just continuing what went before when they got rid of the crown........something that you all sem to forget.

 

Ooops..it's been a while since I've been on here and forgotten that you're a Canuck.

 

Anyhow, let me clear a couple of things up:

 

1. It doesn't matter if you are a racist or not. The people of the states still seem to think these slave-owners were heros and I don't think such bitterness will change there until there is a clear understanding that they were in fact wrong.

 

2. South Africa was not exactly a problem created by Britain. When Britain undertook to abolish slavery (long before the US) it had a settlement in Southern Africa that it had won from the Dutch but their citizens made up a large proportion of the population and THEY were slavers and would violently attack the British if they outright banned the practise of owning slaves so what happened was that a compromise was made whereby the blacks would no longer be slaves but would require a pass to enter a (mainly Afrikaaner) city. This lead to Apartheid eventually but it was not as direct as you may have asserted.

 

Rhodesia? This was a private enterprise by Cecil Rhodes directly against the orders of the British crown not to invate Matebeleland actually. They (the DeBeers and South African Police...Rhodes's private army) tricked their king to sign a document and worded it so that neither their king or our queen or government could contest it. As a private company Rhodesia allowed very little control for the British government and when the policy of NIBMAR (No Independence Before Majority African Rule) was introduced by Britain the Rhodesian from declared a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI, that's what Washington would have used if the word was invented back then). We could not invade, our military was weak and our politicians will to fight a war we knew nothing of the territory so we sanction them and made the illegal country a pariah state.

 

I wouldn't call that Britain's fault but rather private enterprise (something the US knows a lot about, in fact Frederick Burnham, an American, was critical in securing the land for Rhodes). So actually no, you are a bit off there.

 

3. Obama was "just white enough" was a common term used by the US right. If he was as black as his wife, he probably would never have gotten in. The country has not changed THAT much.

 

4. As an Englishman, so did I. I was in DC when he was sworn in.

 

5. He has been a disappointment because he could never match up to the hopes and aspirations of so many people. Nothing to do with his skin...he's also been a bit rubbish but then he's pretty much only a hollow speaker, very good with words and not so good with actions.

 

6. The slaves were brought there as the rich slave owners wanted them and there was a very big market for them. Britain understood financially how much North America was worth to it so it would do most things to try and appease the rich landed gentry across the pond. There were no slaves in Britain itself but lets not defend Britain on that point but these rich men were, however much they argue otherwise. British so they were as much of the problem as you insinuate that Britain was. Also, how many slave owners do you actually think lived in England? Do even seriously think it was as endemic in Britain as it was North America? or the Caribean? Nope, it was mostly the plaything of the rich who buggered off abroad and that pretty much excluded most of the population of Britain. Something you North Americans forget.

 

I that clears a few things up.

[suewhistle]

Has anyone worked out who SarniaSaint is yet?

 

..or what he's on (or forgotten to take.. NURSE!).

[aintforever]

Listen......... it wont happen although there are restrictions on what type of firearm you can purchase or sell.......i.e high powered automatics........and when you have an amnesty the good guys hand theirs in the bad guys keep them.......that's what happened in Canada so the good guys keep them .........same as Canada

 

You dumb f@ckers need to change this 'good guys v bad guys' mentality. Life is not that simple, you're not living in a spagetti western.

 

It is obviously a complicated problem given America's history and culture but there is no excuse for not even trying to sort the problem out. It would take generations to get the situation any where near as good as in the UK but it can be done. A gradual tightening of the laws over decades and maybe when some teenager loses his mind 50 years from now it ends up with someone being stabbed and an arrest not a multiple murder and suicide.

 

Just make a start by making assault rifles illegal, just doing that would probably save a few lives.

Edited 20 June, 2015 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

Some questions, probably best aimed at those on the other side of the pond;

what are the numbers, if recorded at all, for (1) the number of crimes prevented because an intended victim, or possibly an immediate bystander, had a gun, and at least threatened to use it ; (2) the number of 'perps' shot under these circumstances; (3) the number of uninvolved people injured or killed in the crossfire, ( collateral damage ? ), when somebody draws a gun and defends themselves from a crime, or perceived crime.

[Micky]

Hilary Clinton "I am not, and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms."

 

It's short, succinct and to the point. What's the chances that Sarnia gets it?

 

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

[SarniaSaint]

What the f*ck are you banging on about.

 

You turn a statement about the number of life threatening weapons in circulation in the US in to something wholly unrelated because you know you have no come back of merit.

 

Owning guns is not restricted to blacks or whites, stupidity it seems does not discriminate between race.

 

The right to bear arms (or however its worded) is antiquated and so out of date it's not funny, and laws should have been passed (in the US, UK, everywhere) to ban them.

 

So you want to give up your right to defend yourself..........just one question...... who will defend you since you don't want to ??

[SarniaSaint]

I have a problem with so many of them being armed. What is YOUR problem with that ?

 

Which ones should be armed??? in your opinion ????.........genuine question...........

[SarniaSaint]

Is this meant to be a coherent and structured response to Verbal's post, or did you just dribble on your keyboard ?

 

As an insult to me this one is p*ss poor

[SarniaSaint]

I've realised you're not replying to anything. You're just like a really bad, amateurish tagger, vandalising a thread which has otherwise raised and discussed some serious issues, simply because you don't know how else to behave.

 

As for the title and subject of the thread, I notice Obama himself raised that very same question yesterday: what the hell is wrong with America that this happens FAR more frequently than anywhere else in the developed world?

 

So let's put my theory to the test. Let's see if you are capable of a yes or no answer. Remember, the options are: Yes and No. Got it?

 

Do you, or do you not, endorse the NRA's contention that the killings would have been avoided had the church paster armed his congregation, and that he was therefore at fault for being 'political' about gun control?

 

Don't vandalise; give an intelligible response. For once.

 

No would not have stopped it

 

Yes would have possibly reduced the number of dead

 

That answer OK

[SarniaSaint]

Has anyone worked out who SarniaSaint is yet?

 

 

LOL

[SarniaSaint]

Ooops..it's been a while since I've been on here and forgotten that you're a Canuck.

 

Anyhow, let me clear a couple of things up:

 

1. It doesn't matter if you are a racist or not. The people of the states still seem to think these slave-owners were heros and I don't think such bitterness will change there until there is a clear understanding that they were in fact wrong.

 

I guess you are talking about Washington ........... yes he is hero but only for getting the british crown out

 

2. South Africa was not exactly a problem created by Britain. When Britain undertook to abolish slavery (long before the US) it had a settlement in Southern Africa that it had won from the Dutch but their citizens made up a large proportion of the population and THEY were slavers and would violently attack the British if they outright banned the practise of owning slaves so what happened was that a compromise was made whereby the blacks would no longer be slaves but would require a pass to enter a (mainly Afrikaaner) city. This lead to Apartheid eventually but it was not as direct as you may have asserted.

 

Rhodesia? This was a private enterprise by Cecil Rhodes directly against the orders of the British crown not to invate Matebeleland actually. They (the DeBeers and South African Police...Rhodes's private army) tricked their king to sign a document and worded it so that neither their king or our queen or government could contest it. As a private company Rhodesia allowed very little control for the British government and when the policy of NIBMAR (No Independence Before Majority African Rule) was introduced by Britain the Rhodesian from declared a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI, that's what Washington would have used if the word was invented back then). We could not invade, our military was weak and our politicians will to fight a war we knew nothing of the territory so we sanction them and made the illegal country a pariah state.

 

I wouldn't call that Britain's fault but rather private enterprise (something the US knows a lot about, in fact Frederick Burnham, an American, was critical in securing the land for Rhodes). So actually no, you are a bit off there.

 

I'll take your word for that .......but why was SA and Rhodesia part of the Empire that ruled 1/4 of the world ??

 

3. Obama was "just white enough" was a common term used by the US right. If he was as black as his wife, he probably would never have gotten in. The country has not changed THAT much.

 

Democrats would have won regardless .......so don't see what you are trying to say

 

4. As an Englishman, so did I. I was in DC when he was sworn in.

 

Finally agree on something

 

5. He has been a disappointment because he could never match up to the hopes and aspirations of so many people. Nothing to do with his skin...he's also been a bit rubbish but then he's pretty much only a hollow speaker, very good with words and not so good with actions.

 

Agree but was left a terrible legacy from the guy before.........hope that Hilary is the next prez

 

6. The slaves were brought there as the rich slave owners wanted them and there was a very big market for them. Britain understood financially how much North America was worth to it so it would do most things to try and appease the rich landed gentry across the pond. There were no slaves in Britain itself but lets not defend Britain on that point but these rich men were, however much they argue otherwise. British so they were as much of the problem as you insinuate that Britain was. Also, how many slave owners do you actually think lived in England? Do even seriously think it was as endemic in Britain as it was North America? or the Caribean? Nope, it was mostly the plaything of the rich who buggered off abroad and that pretty much excluded most of the population of Britain. Something you North Americans forget.

 

No I don't think it was endemic to the UK mainland.......but none the less it was the brits that started to populate the north American continent and the caribean with slaves from africa

 

I that clears a few things up.

 

Hey a reply to a sensible post

[SarniaSaint]

..or what he's on (or forgotten to take.. NURSE!).

 

You can nurse me anytime

[SarniaSaint]

You dumb f@ckers need to change this 'good guys v bad guys' mentality. Life is not that simple, you're not living in a spagetti western.

 

It is obviously a complicated problem given America's history and culture but there is no excuse for not even trying to sort the problem out. It would take generations to get the situation any where near as good as in the UK but it can be done. A gradual tightening of the laws over decades and maybe when some teenager loses his mind 50 years from now it ends up with someone being stabbed and an arrest not a multiple murder and suicide.

 

Just make a start by making assault rifles illegal, just doing that would probably save a few lives.

 

FYI they are illegal

[SarniaSaint]

Some questions, probably best aimed at those on the other side of the pond;

what are the numbers, if recorded at all, for (1) the number of crimes prevented because an intended victim, or possibly an immediate bystander, had a gun, and at least threatened to use it ; (2) the number of 'perps' shot under these circumstances; (3) the number of uninvolved people injured or killed in the crossfire, ( collateral damage ? ), when somebody draws a gun and defends themselves from a crime, or perceived crime.

 

LOL .......that's the same as me asking how many people p*ss on the street in the uk

[SarniaSaint]

Hilary Clinton "I am not, and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms."

 

It's short, succinct and to the point. What's the chances that Sarnia gets it?

 

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

 

Hey I get it......OK

[scotty]

You can nurse me anytime

 

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree there.

[SO16_Saint]

[/b]So you want to give up your right to defend yourself..........just one question...... who will defend you since you don't want to ??

Firstly, I'd guess that a large parentage of shootings are where the victim had no idea it was coming and a surprise, so therefore unable to defend themselves, so having a gun would have been worthless.

 

Wonder how many people have been shot by those *not* caring guns versus those who *have* been carrying guns.

 

Therefore if you ban guns and no one had guns, why would I need one to defend myself.

 

 

Moral of the story. Ban guns.

[Batman]

it may be a little old now but bowling for columbine is a good watch.

[svetigpung]

Oi, its spelt COLOUR.

you can't just leave out letters because it makes spelling easier.

[Jack]

This thread will go on forever, or at least until there is a better alternative to the Internet.

 

Things I think are wrong with America:

 

SarniaSaint

Too many f*cking guns

Portion sizes

Desserts for breakfast

The whole 'bigger is better' attitude to everything

Guns

Their self proclaimed 'World Police' status

EVERYTHING is exaggerated

Guns

Attitude towards policing and jailing as many people as possible

Baseball

'Football'

'Commercials'

Bastardising a perfectly good language

Guns

 

Think that about covers it

[badgerx16]

Which ones should be armed??? in your opinion ????.........genuine question...........

I accept that the Diplomatic Protection bods should be armed, probably a small number as a visible deterrent at airports, then a small number for 'armed response'. Most crimes in the UK can be addressed by unarmed officers, ALL crimes in other countries ( note - not just the US ) are always met with armed officers. I do not feel as comfortable when I am abroad and see so many armed officers.

[badgerx16]

LOL .......that's the same as me asking how many people p*ss on the street in the uk

It's not though, is it. People don't die because somebody ****es in the street.

 

Anyway, isn't the argument over 'the right to bear arms' based on self defence and crime deterrence ? Such figures should be readily available from the NRA if there was any validation of their line of argument.

Edited 21 June, 2015 by badgerx16

[Batman]

I accept that the Diplomatic Protection bods should be armed, probably a small number as a visible deterrent at airports, then a small number for 'armed response'. Most crimes in the UK can be addressed by unarmed officers, ALL crimes in other countries ( note - not just the US ) are always met with armed officers. I do not feel as comfortable when I am abroad and see so many armed officers.

you see plenty of armed officers walking around london.

then, that is a different kettle of fish

[badgerx16]

you see plenty of armed officers walking around london.

then, that is a different kettle of fish

But you don't in Lancaster, Blackpool, or Preston.

[Verbal]

FYI they are illegal

 

You seem incapable of grasping even simple facts. Assault weapons, so long as they're semi-automatic, are NOT banned in the US.

 

The legislation banning them, passed in 1994, expired in 2004. So you're a full decade and more out of date. Even that law prohibited only those weapons manufactured after the date of its congressional approval.

[Polaroid Saint]

This thread will go on forever, or at least until there is a better alternative to the Internet.

 

Things I think are wrong with America:

 

SarniaSaint

Too many f*cking guns

Portion sizes

Desserts for breakfast

The whole 'bigger is better' attitude to everything

Guns

Their self proclaimed 'World Police' status

EVERYTHING is exaggerated

Guns

Attitude towards policing and jailing as many people as possible

Baseball

'Football'

'Commercials'

Bastardising a perfectly good language

Guns

 

Think that about covers it

I pretty much agree with all of this apart from the bit about the supposed bastardisation of the English language by America. Most of the perceived changes to the spelling, use and pronunciation of words that have happened in the (very roughly) 200 years since the languages 'split' in the official dictionaries of the two countries, have occurred on both sides of the pond.

For example the Brits used to use Z not S in words like bastardised, the Brits changed, America did not.

Dropping the U in Colour makes perfect sense really (unless you prefer medieval French to modern International English - and no problem if you do, but still!).

Same goes for words like Miter/Mitre... ...which have changed numerous times over the last few hundred years. Neither is better in my opinion but the fact they can mean different things is a useful reason to keep both (eg in this instance a unit of length or indication of timing).

I guess, coming from a scientific background, I prefer the uniformity and simplicity of modern shorter variants (do we really need the extra UE on words like analogUE?). However as a lover of music, poetry and fine writing I appreciate the variation and complexity of a language derived from Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic and Celtic (amongst many others and borrowed words). The vast history, and associated etymology, is important to English's beautiful lexicon. Of course the above are primarily PIE (proto-indo-european) languages anyway, so are related at their core.

 

Language flows and grows and contracts, it absorbs and morphs. It is there to express ideas, both base and novel. Its ability to change is part of its power. We must never stop that from happening by being over precious regarding perceived laws and doctrines as to it's structure. Words have power and that power rests in the ideas they define not in the order of the letters, or the grammar that instructs usage. Words are the greatest weapon in the fight against ignorance and fear. Not guns.

 

(See, brought it right back on topic at the end there.)

 

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

No would not have stopped it

 

Yes would have possibly reduced the number of dead

 

That answer OK

 

No, that answer is not okay. It is the standard NRA response. Guns don't prevent violence - they just allow the 'good guys' to be violent back to the 'bad guys'. (By the NRA’s own definition, Roof would have been a good guy before killing members of the Emanuel church.)

 

Look, you may not like what follows but I don't think I'm alone in thinking this.

 

Many have wondered whether you're a troll or can possibly be serious. My view is it doesn't matter.

 

If you're a troll, you've decided to include in your giggly entertainment the huge upsurge in reckless murders of black people by law officers and white supremacist loonies of black people.

 

If you’re serious, you seem to revel in the deaths of black people at the hands of law officers, most of them wielding your fetishistic favourite, handguns.

 

You've had especial fun over the fact that Walter Scott was shot dead by cops for running from his car, and that Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams were shot dead by cops for NOT running from their car. In both cases, you've said, it was the black victims’ own stupid fault that they got themselves killed.

 

Therefore, either as a troll or as someone who imagines himself to be perfectly serious, you endorse the reckless killing of black people by cops and white supremacists. Not one word of the mildest criticism have you allowed to pass, or have you allowed yourself to utter.

 

That, in my view, makes you a racist scumbag, regardless of your feeble denials.

 

This may be just a small wing of a football forum, and you no doubt think it really doesn’t matter, but views like yours are nastily prevalent in the NRA, the KKK, the Tea Party and others. And I personally don’t want them even tangentially associated with this football club.

 

So please take this in the spirit it’s intended: go to hell.

[trousers]

This was my favourite 'SarniaSaint' thread: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?t=51089

 

Whilst its way behind this one in terms of bite count, its quality over quantity every time for me when it comes to wind-up threads.

[whelk]

I pretty much agree with all of this apart from the bit about the supposed bastardisation of the English language by America. Most of the perceived changes to the spelling, use and pronunciation of words that have happened in the (very roughly) 200 years since the languages 'split' in the official dictionaries of the two countries, have occurred on both sides of the pond.

For example the Brits used to use Z not S in words like bastardised, the Brits changed, America did not.

Dropping the U in Colour makes perfect sense really (unless you prefer medieval French to modern International English - and no problem if you do, but still!).

Same goes for words like Miter/Mitre... ...which have changed numerous times over the last few hundred years. Neither is better in my opinion but the fact they can mean different things is a useful reason to keep both (eg in this instance a unit of length or indication of timing).

I guess, coming from a scientific background, I prefer the uniformity and simplicity of modern shorter variants (do we really need the extra UE on words like analogUE?). However as a lover of music, poetry and fine writing I appreciate the variation and complexity of a language derived from Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic and Celtic (amongst many others and borrowed words). The vast history, and associated etymology, is important to English's beautiful lexicon. Of course the above are primarily PIE (proto-indo-european) languages anyway, so are related at their core.

 

Language flows and grows and contracts, it absorbs and morphs. It is there to express ideas, both base and novel. Its ability to change is part of its power. We must never stop that from happening by being over precious regarding perceived laws and doctrines as to it's structure. Words have power and that power rests in the ideas they define not in the order of the letters, or the grammar that instructs usage. Words are the greatest weapon in the fight against ignorance and fear. Not guns.

 

(See, brought it right back on topic at the end there.)

 

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

Anyone else think this is just Sarnia posting on an alternate username?

 

Glad to see thread still going but haven't got the will to scroll back to what Sarnia's take on the horrendous killings in Charlottesville.

[RoswellSaint]

This thread will go on forever, or at least until there is a better alternative to the Internet.

 

Things I think are wrong with America:

 

SarniaSaint - he's Canadian

Too many f*cking guns

Portion sizes -true

Desserts for breakfast - you get used to it!

The whole 'bigger is better' attitude to everything

Guns

Their self proclaimed 'World Police' status - that could be a thread in itself. On many occasions, the world looks to America to police issues.

EVERYTHING is exaggerated

Guns

Attitude towards policing and jailing as many people as possible

Baseball - great game if you give it a chance

'Football' - likewise

'Commercials' - some great ones and some awful. Just like UK TV

Bastardising a perfectly good language - Polaroid has done an excellent job with that.

Guns

 

Think that about covers it

Comments above

Edited 21 June, 2015 by RoswellSaint
Clarity

[RoswellSaint]

Oi, its spelt COLOUR.

you can't just leave out letters because it makes spelling easier.

 

See Polaroid's comments. I did type the u but my American spellchecker removed it.

[RoswellSaint]

Anyone else think this is just Sarnia posting on an alternate username?

 

Glad to see thread still going but haven't got the will to scroll back to what Sarnia's take on the horrendous killings in Charlottesville.

 

This must be a 'whoosh' moment because I would never have thought that!

[buctootim]

If we're going to be really picky it should be spelt 'cullor'

[Hockey_saint]

Hey a reply to a sensible post

 

I think you misunderstand however what I am saying about the link between Washington and Rhodesia. You see, that's another myth. George Washington was until the day he died a brit. That essentially the problem the rhodesians and the US founding fathers both thought they were more British than britons themselves....when it turns out we're not actually a bunch of arse-wiping slave-owning quasi nazis....only the right wing politicians here mostly....either way, you're wrong, Washington lost more battles than he won. It was a confederation of european states that wore Britain down until it decided those 13 colonies were not worth it and as you know...buggered up north....seriously dont turn into a yank in think we were beaten and driven out of America because that's wrong.