Lord Mord

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Mord

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

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,507 profile views
  1. larrytheimp, I notice that you don't push back on the characterization that it is prejudice. But if you re-read what I wrote, you'll also see that I'm not at all claiming they are society's victims, so I'm not sure what merited this response.
  2. Tywin et al., What is the point of such a generalization, though? The only point that I know of is, once you have the generalization, then you've got a baseline for judging a member of the class absent any other significant data. But, that's prejudice, no?
  3. Gronzag, In what way is it ironic?
  4. Lots of people been saying that the Tories are in bed with Russsians who've given them money. I've no problem believing it, per se, but here's the part I don't get. There's no honor among thieves -- or among the corrupt. You pay me to get an edge in my country's local politics, and that's all very well, but you'd better damn well be sure I won't suffer you to muscle in on my personal strength, i.e. with my countrymen. If I'm part of the government, and you embarrass us and threaten us on the world stage, you'd better be goddamn sure I'm keeping your money and using it to run for a re-election for the purpose of shitting all over you and your country and embarrassing the fuck out of all of you. So, why isn't that the Tories' position? Taking the money from the Russians should make them more pissed, more likely to hit back, and not less. So ... what am I missing? What is their problem?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. Eggegg, Which immigration decisions did he make which enticed the peoples' resentment?
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. I had always thought that was largely assumed, in practice if not always explicitly in theory.
  15. 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?