Lord Mord

Members
  • Content count

    7,249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Mord

  • Rank
    And then there's Mord!
  • Birthday 09/05/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,481 profile views
  1. Eggegg, Emphasis mine. The implicit assumption here is that there was zero control on the influx of people. Will you please substantiate this assertion? It just runs contrary to experience and common sense, and is therefore an extraordinary claim. I don't mean to deny that the Labour government has to take some blame. Leadership cannot, by definition, escape blame for what happens politically while they are in office, or in the aftermath of their decisions. That's fair. Yet, by whom, and with what honeyed words do we suppose the monster of these people's irrational fears were ever going to be tamed? The British people may ordinarily be lovely, fair-minded, charitable, etc. Until this conversation, I was prepared to accept that there were principally libertarian, "let's be ruled by Britons alone" sort of attitude underpinning Brexit. Yet, you posited immigration was a principal issue, and insofar as that is accurate, then it was an ugly overreaction, and one is forced to wonder how long that instinct should be coddled.
  2. Eggegg, Isn't there an argument to be made that he was counting on the better nature of the people and they disappointed? Are you saying he should have known they weren't ready to get over their prejudice?
  3. Eggegg, Okay, so he permitted easier immigration, and the presence of these outsiders led to Brexit. Does that not underscore that the vote in favor was substantially xenophobic in origin?
  4. Eggegg, Which immigration decisions did he make which enticed the peoples' resentment?
  5. Lew, I don't know that anyone gets to claim a monopoly on honesty of interpretation. Certainly, I don't see the rationale for saying it. I had thought, though, that the whole purpose of writing the Constitution in such a spare, and sometimes vague manner was to set down the general shape of some of notions, knowing those shapes would be colored in somewhat differently in the following age, without destroying the document. That sounds to me like something that evolves, even without amendment. They wanted it to bend, so it wouldn't have to break. Indeed, if your description were accurate, then surely we could not assume that the First Amendment protects anything particularly which appears on the internet, nor that the Second Amendment should protect our rights to automatic weapons. Those things were not what was meant at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Those rights, therefore, don't exist, because the document is strictly limited to what was intended at the time, right? Or, I suppose I must have missed something? Please help me understand.
  6. It has been a while. Nice to see some things nevertheless change. Of course it's a pun without the word "bitch", and of course it's misogynistic regardless of its being a pun, or brief, or whatever. There is no gender-associated word equivalent for referring to males, and if there were, we shouldn't use it. We ought not employ a person's gender against him or her, right?
  7. I'm still not clear, after watching this coverage for over an hour, just exactly who got hurt in this tumult. A lot of people showed up, they were vociferous and Trump bolted. What am I not being told?
  8. Swordfish, The answer is still about the base. If you see the Devil coming, do you just dodge and feint his attacks? That's not a very heroic meme. Thinking about tactics is for lily-livered appeasers and socialists. For the base, it's not enough to win by default -- you have to be seen winning, which means taking a stand.
  9. Nestor, I've heard it said that if the Republicans cave now and hold hearings or confirm a Justice that they will be torn to pieces, no matter how conservative the Justice. I have a hard time believing that most people are really paying that kind of attention, and there would be next to no consequences for going back on their pronouncement. What do you think?
  10. I had always thought that was largely assumed, in practice if not always explicitly in theory.
  11. Prunes, I appreciate your response and your candor. So, if the police are afraid to shut down this pedophilia ring due to PC reprisals, I presume it's not fear of the public directly which motivates them, but instead they fear reprisals from their employers. Their employers are, presumably, elected public officials who will need votes, and who fear a PC smear campaign in the next election. Have I got that all straight?
  12. Prunes, You also haven't answered my question. Indeed, respectfully, I don't see how it can have been considered an answer to my question at all. I was not interested in a specific incidence of political correctness, accurate or otherwise. I was asking if you were positing a definition for political correctness. Is political correctness by definition characterized by the inaccuracy of its criticisms?
  13. Prunes, Are you positing that the distinction between criticism and political correctness is that the former is always accurate and the latter is always in error?
  14. Prunes, Thank you. If you were to criticize a police department for racist conduct, why shouldn't everyone discount your complaint as mere political correctness?
  15. Prunes, I'm sorry, but this doesn't really answer any of my questions. My fault for bad phrasing and for trying to do too much at one go. I should break this down by individual questions, perhaps. Now, keep in mind, please, that at least some of these questions, including the very first one, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to. Yet, just to make sure I don't get ahead of myself again, I need to take it slowly. I appreciate your patience in bearing with me on this. First question: Do you believe that the people should criticize their police and other public officials if they have cause to believe the conduct of those officials is racially motivated?