K-Mac Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ed-1679127.html This is so funny on so many levels. First, it almost makes me want to listen to Michael Savage today so I can hear him rant and rave about this. He's such an irrational, hot-head. Second, "Coming to this country[the UK] is a privilege." ??? "I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Ms Smith told GMTV. "Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded. "We are publishing the names of 16 of those that we have excluded since October. We are telling people who they are and why it is we don't want them in this country." I guess Sharia law is more in line with England's "values and sorts of standards"? Ha ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Linked from Savage's site: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Savage loves this sort of publicity. These fools are too stupid to realize that they're doing the wack-job a favor by giving him a chance to get his name in the papers. Strange, but I noticed that Carrie Prejean isn't on the list yet. They had better get on the ball there in England! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine," he recalled thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Meh, talk show hosts and nut-job preachers... That's nothing. Canada banned a British Member of Parliament last month for his support of Hezbollah. (In Canada giving money and other support for terrorist organizations is a crime.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Pre-emptive censorship? Or at least a stern finger wag threatening others not to hold "extreme" views? What nerve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Thought police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Second, "Coming to this country[the UK] is a privilege." ??? There's an old Monty Python sketch in which a British nativist is ranting about immigration. (This works better if you imagine it yelled in a heavy British yob accent.) "Blimey! I don't believe anybody who's gone abroad should be allowed back in the country! I mean, if they're not keen enough to stay here when they're here, why should we allow them back at the taxpayer's expense?" Then it sort of devolves into a rant about not eating squirrels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 This is unfair discrimination! MY views are MUCH more extreme than Michael Savage's! I demand my place on the list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ed-1679127.html This is so funny on so many levels. First, it almost makes me want to listen to Michael Savage today so I can hear him rant and rave about this. He's such an irrational, hot-head. Second, "Coming to this country[the UK] is a privilege." ??? I guess Sharia law is more in line with England's "values and sorts of standards"? Ha ha ha! I heard him and it wasn't as spectacular as I thought it would be. He is right on this one. Damn! Bernie Goldberg (Bias and The Slobbering activism of the media) listed Savage as one of the 110 persons screwing up America. I hope you know that most of this is an act, demonstrating how we should be more "savage" to our enemies. However it overshadows his rational messages and his better moments as in "Psychological Nudity" ( I like that concept as he uses it to mean honesty and a look at one's naked soul). Still he and Levin get bigtime demerits for using the shout-down tactics which are the province of the leftist student rabble. But how come leftist admins like to have fascists as their homeland security chiefs? Jackie Smith and Janet Napolitano are cut from the same gestapo-esque cloth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 But how come leftist admins like to have fascists as their homeland security chiefs? Jackie Smith and Janet Napolitano are cut from the same gestapo-esque cloth Differences between Napolitano and the Gestapo: Gestapo: established by a Nazi Party dictatorship Napolitano: appointed by a democratically elected President Gestapo: tasked with setting up concentration camps, to commit mass murder Napolitano: nothing whatsoever to do with any concentration camps or mass murder Gestapo: had carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight Napolitano: operating within the confines of a mostly justifiable Law Gestapo: murdered and tortured political opponents, both German and from the occupied territories Neapolitan: never murdered or tortured anyone, ever in her life The list could go on and on. Your response, hopefully somewhat on topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanjos Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ha! He's only there to make up the numbers.. If the list was nothing but Arabic name's they'd be worried their measure to stop incitement of hatred would actually incite hatred. Roll on graduation..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) Differences between Napolitano and the Gestapo: Gestapo: established by a Nazi Party dictatorship Napolitano: appointed by a democratically elected President Gestapo: tasked with setting up concentration camps, to commit mass murder Napolitano: nothing whatsoever to do with any concentration camps or mass murder Gestapo: had carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight Napolitano: operating within the confines of a mostly justifiable Law Gestapo: murdered and tortured political opponents, both German and from the occupied territories Neapolitan: never murdered or tortured anyone, ever in her life The list could go on and on. Your response, hopefully somewhat on topic? Anybody whose head is not 3/4 up their colon and who knows how to read would know I was not speaking literally, hence "-eszue" In fact, beginning with P.J O'Rourke, 25 years ago, anyone who acts like Smith and Napolitano are informally called "nazi" as in "safety nazi", "health nazi" and the like. Grow up! Edited May 6, 2009 by Space Patroller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Anybody whose head is not 3/4 up their colon and who knows how to read would know I was not speaking literally, hence "-eszue" In fact, beginning with P.J O'Rourke, 25 years ago, anyone who acts like Smith and Napolitano are informally called "nazi" as in "safety nazi", "health nazi" and the like. Grow up! I think your posts are unintelligent-esque and shallow-esque, and you have a complete lack of respect for the intransigent, rational minds who are trying to impart valuable knowledge to others, through this forum. Please stop. Esque. So, did my adding of "esque" three times mitigate the meaning of my post in any way, making it less of a categoric condemnation of your activities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Not to argue with your general point, but... Gestapo: established by a Nazi Party dictatorship Napolitano: appointed by a democratically elected President Weren't the Nazis democratically elected ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Then it sort of devolves into a rant about not eating squirrels. Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Not to argue with your general point, but... Weren't the Nazis democratically elected ? They were-esque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think your posts are unintelligent-esque and shallow-esque, and you have a complete lack of respect for the intransigent, rational minds who are trying to impart valuable knowledge to others, through this forum. Please stop. Esque. So, did my adding of "esque" three times mitigate the meaning of my post in any way, making it less of a categoric condemnation of your activities? No, it just shows what happens when a mind that can't get out of the narrow band of literal interpretation tries to be a wiseass. Intelligent, adult, rational minds know how to interpret infromal language. If we were in a formal sutuation then that would be a different matter. Stop being so uptight-esque and lighten up-esque or you'll die of apoplexy before you hit 50. And also learn about aside comments, too. I guess David Brudnoy was rightg about how miserably Gen-X'ers were educated. When I was your age in 1972 I was writing A level papers and had performed a philosphical synthesis that proved the internal consistency of Objectivism using mathematical logic techniques, Two years later I gave a talk on Objectivism as part of the Philosophy Seminar portion of the 5-credit Western Civ class at Providence College in which class I got an A. and my talk was so good that the instructor had me stay over for the next class. Now if you know anything about colleges and their philosophy departments, you would know the full meaning of that. 30 years ago I did a synthesis of how the special sciences lead up to philosophy, which given the earlier synthesis, proved from a math logical perspective that Objectivism is indeed the proper philosphy, having both coherence and correspondence. There's one thing that a 27 year old wiseass doesn't get: I've been 27, Have you been 37? 47? or 57? If you were dealing in the physical world with real people you'd get a good cuffing for that kind of crap (the one we both should have gotten when we were 14 and I got when I was 19 that says "you're in the garem") and told "You know friggin' well what I menat. What are you? A baby?", or if you tried that on Brudnoy's talk show he'd tell you in a very embarrassing way not to be such a prig and you don't want to know what Ayn Rand would do to you; just her tone of voice would send shivers up your spine. I've heard her do it (on the radio and it sent shivers up mine). And ther'd be no sympathy, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ed-1679127.html This is so funny on so many levels. First, it almost makes me want to listen to Michael Savage today so I can hear him rant and rave about this. He's such an irrational, hot-head. Second, "Coming to this country[the UK] is a privilege." ??? I guess Sharia law is more in line with England's "values and sorts of standards"? Ha ha ha! "I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Ms Smith told GMTV. "Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded." There's also another thing here. Have they forgotten 1776 and 1812? Just what geves them the arrogance to tell persons how to act on their own soil? I guess they forgot that they pissed away their empire. Especially since World Wars I and II when we violated our professed neutrality on their behalf. Hey guys, just in case you forgot or didn't get it This is the United States of America, NOT the North American Colonies. Something about some poor bloke named Cornwallis... Perhaps we would regard it as a privelege to visit your country if you didn't have classless dolts in high places. We tend to be Anglophiles to start with. And there's always Dr. Who. I hope the print is big enough so that Smith can read it without her spectacles. Oh, and Jackie: Just sign me up as Abdul Hasan Atta-Toud Ibn Al-Speis-Patrollah Sheik Yabouti. aka the Ayatollah of Roq-N-Rollah: And my name better be at the top of the damn list, too! No, Smitty, that's not a gun you see, it's my middle finger: held high and proud and right in your fat face. It's a long way down from Margaret Thatcher to Jackie Smith Edited May 7, 2009 by Space Patroller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Speaking of more antics... http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=13576151 By this measure, Britain’s attempts to fill the fiscal gulf created by recession are a dismal failure and a lesson to cash-strapped governments everywhere. Take marginal income tax rates, announced in the British budget of April 22nd. Once national insurance is added in, effective marginal rates will climb from 31.5% to 41.5% through to 61.5% on those earning just over £100,000 ($147,000), thanks to the withdrawal of the personal tax allowance. After that, the rate will fall back to 41.5%, before rising again to 51.5% on incomes over £150,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 1812? Space Patroller? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Speaking of more antics... From the article you posted K-Mac: Although higher taxes would be a mistake in a recession, they are inevitable when growth returns. The rich should pay their share, but governments cannot repair their finances merely by plugging holes or using stealth taxes. The sums are too great. They will have to raise money from the majority of citizens and they should do so in a clear and open fashion. It looks as though we're headed down the same path as the Brits. You simply can't raise enough money by just soaking the rich. Despite our illustrious president's comments to the contrary, the other 95% aren't going to be able to enjoy a free ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Nope. Gotta work for what you want. No way around it. (Not for very long anyway.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.