More EU Madness!

Chris, I assume by her Parthian shot that Christine has put me on ignore as I know for a fact that some of the conservative posters have done likewise to liberal posters. I have had no input regarding that as this happened before I arrived and furthermore, I personally would never put anyone on ignore regardless of the provocation, perceived or real.

The play/movie 1776 was perhaps the most inane rendering of such a momentous subject that I can recall. Nevertheless, it has its moments. After one of the delegates returns from using “the necessary,” he inquires where the debate stands. He’s informed that he is to be the deciding vote as to whether the subject of independence should even be debated. He reflects for a moment and replies: “Hell, yes. I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it can’t even be talked about.” Bravo!

I have no idea how old Christine is or other posters or lurkers here that are from the EU. But if she or others live long enough (and Douglas Murray (who is openly gay, by the way) believes it will be within the lifetimes of most people living today), the day might well come when what I and others have stated here will resonate with her and them and think: You know, maybe that guy I encountered on the Movie Forum years ago who I thought was such a jerk might have been right after all.

As for my fellow Americans, we’re starting far down the road from our cultural cousins in the old sod. We have more time. Let us learn from their folly before it is too late for us as well. BTW, to the indigenous Europeans, when the time comes please flee to Australia or New Zealand, not here!

I hold to the view that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I wouldn't either, but this is neither here nor there. She'd already replied to you, and you'd already responded to her directly, so this doesn't explain or address anything.

I've also never heard of an idea so dangerous that it had to be suppressed through sheer repetition, rather than reasoned debate.

I sure hope your efforts aren't sustained wholly on such wishcasting. But whether you're right or not about the importance of the issue is completely separate from whether or not you're right about the reasoning that leads to your position, or all the other issues you've awkwardly tried to attach to it, let alone the issue of whether or not you're actually contributing to a solution by doing any of this.

I made this point earlier, and more than once. You've yet to respond, and continue to fail to distinguish between these things.

See? Even when I point out how manifestly uninterested you are in discussion, you ignore most of what I say and do the exact thing I was just describing. The need to restate your position, rather than argue it, is apparently so compulsive that you can't help but do it even in the process of responding to the charge that you do it!

In other words, you put your own judgment over the Constitution. Good to know. That's your prerogative, but you don't get to pretend to reflect the founders' worldview at the same time you undermine their crowning achievement. Your views are at odds with America's founding principles, plain and simple.

Also, the argument in question was not about open borders (even though you rather blatantly tried to pretend it was when questioned, in direct contradiction to your earlier statements), but whether or not people should have to suppress their culture and individuality when they come here.

So, apparently, you think there is no idea so dangerous that it cannot be discussed, but there are hats so fearsome that they present an existential threat.

Really? That’s exactly what left wing jurists have done for years. To my knowledge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has come closest to out-and-out acknowledging this in response to the late, great Justice Scalia who would scold her for departing from what was actually written within the text of the constitution. She stated that when the constitution was written, black people were enslaved and white women were oppressed. Therefore, presumably it is all right to change what is actually written and what was actually intended by judicial fiat rather than waiting for the oh so arduous and inconvenient tool the framers gave us called a constitutional amendment.

You know, the word “interpretation" can carry only so much baggage. If one so pleases, one may interpret Waterloo as a Napoleonic victory. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Nappy ended his mercurial career growing potatoes on St. Helena Island.

What the??? This has what to do with the price of eggs in China? Did vax cause that, or was it a hijab perhaps? You still havent answered my question about what religion that person is above.

Jesus wept. What were you saying about head in the sand?

As for your comment about the DalAi Lama, how convenient to omit that he said they should go back to rebuild their country...when the civil war is over. And he doesnt agree with her at all. He teaches love compassion tolerance and forgiveness, not fear and hatred.

Oh, how very clever. “If the shoe fits…” then why not hats as well?

Er, yes. Which is bad. Bad when they do it, bad when you do it.

Also bad: trying to deflect substantive critiques by just randomly talking about liberals.

Thanks. Glad you think it's clever. But I'd be gladder still if you addressed the argument underlying it, particularly if you plan on repeating it again later.

Well, I thought I’d mention that the author is a member of a traditionally favored group by the PC crowd, though he has stated that he fears that the PC police are beginning to put “religious freedom” ahead of "sexual freedom" regarding Islam’s enlightened attitude towards homosexuals.

Regarding vaccinations, you badgered me to return the thread to the OP, as if I were the one who diverted it to other topics. When I did so in a substantive post, you simply chose to ignore it.

Regarding my (earnest) request that when the time comes that the indigenous PC Europeans look to other parts for refuge (such as your homeland?), since you and they dismiss my admonitions as the ravings of an alarmist, then the point is rather moot from your perspective, is it not?

Regarding the Dali Lama, you did note that he suggested that genuine refugees return to their homeland when such becomes a possibility, did you?. Well, that’s progress, but do your really think many will?

Well, it’s difficult to believe that you are not familiar with the ending of the adage that I omitted by invoking ellipses (for rhetorical effect). Therefore, you should have been able to grasp my point, even if not agreeing with it.

It's DalAi Lama, not Dali. That's a village in China. And the first victim of the fire in Chelsea had openly stated he planned to return to Syria. How on earth do you know what these refugees are thinking; I doubt you've ever met one. You do know the Dalai Lama is a refugee, I guess. He would go back tomorrow to rebuild his country if the Chinese government and army left.


The old 'blame it on the other guy' routine, hey? In your OP you lobbed in the bait with your Eurabia comment. And you obviously were quite happy for the hijack otherwise you would have shot it down. You've done nothing but rant and try to shout people down who dont agree with you ever since.

You dont get out much, do you.

I am indeed familiar with the adage, but I don't see how the rest of it makes any point at all. It explains none of the cognitive dissonance inherent in talking about the necessity of being able to discuss any idea, while simultaneously suggesting that someone's manner of dress is a threat to our very way of life, even though they're rooted in the same principles of freedom and self-expression.

In other words, it's yet another reaffirming of a position, rather than an argument for it.

So, I misspelled a foreign name (or title)? How remiss of me. That’s the first point you’ve scored within your inane ramblings. Just as Ann Coulter admonishes regarding liberals, you go from one scattered topic/thought to the next barely pausing to catch your breath. But thanks for the spelling lesson. I'm educable. I shall endeavor to be more attentive to such matters in the future.

Now, go have a nice cup of tea and enjoy this musical selection I chose just for you, a truly splendid rendition from one of your illustrious homies. I hope your future PC European refugee hoards will come to cherish it as much as you undoubtedly do:



P.S. C'mon, 'fess up. I'm beginning to grow on you!

I'm yet to see you score one, Don. You're all over the shop this weekend. Will it make you happy if I rep your post just once?

I dont know who Ann Coulter is and I have no interest. I told you, thanks but no thanks for any recommendations from you, although I am curious if you actually watch movies. I doubt it, though. As someone else suggested, you should drop Fox news and go watch a fun, light hearted movie.

Trying to order me around the way you'd like to order other women around because of a piece of material they wear on their head? Tell me, even though I know you'll skirt this issue again, how to you propose for authorities to know which head garment is religious, cultural or a fashion statement. Badge those who wear them for religious purposes? Would that include this person?



Badging seems a bit too last century, does it not???!


And on your final comment, you really aren't as worldly or educated as you like to think you are. It's getting embarrassing.

Well, so much for my proffered olive branch. Regarding Ann Coulter, for starters, she’s a …woman!

Take care.

And? Does she wear material on her head? I have a hat fetish so if she does I might even like her.

Just as a final note on this thread, Ms. Coulter is not renown as a fashion plate, though hardly a slob either. And there are few things I would wager my life upon but I would this: You would not like her (no matter how she dressed).

Also, when I referred to the musical selection as a “truly splendid rendition,” I was being jocular, yes, but not sarcastic. I very much appreciated Slim and often listen to his recordings. I was saddened when he passed away some years back. ("And his ghost may be heard....") And I truly love this classic despite never having been near your native land. (Would that qualify me as “worldly”? One can only hope.)

Muriel's Wedding

You wouldnt have the faintest idea what or who I would not like.

I took your final comment of 'take care' as an adios, so please stop tagging me. If you're not going to answer my question on what religion that person magically tells you she is just by looking at her, or how authorities are going to differentiate head garments so they can restrict those pesky religious clothes that create fear and suspicion in the world according to Don, I'm not interested in your other hijacks that just seem all over the place. And Don, seriously? You don't have to visit a country to not be totally ignorant about whether or not it's multicultural.

I don't have you on ignore. I've never had anyone on ignore.

I am willing to talk about any idea, but I have problems when people state as facts things which either they are repeating from unreliable news sources, or deliberately ignoring the views of people who actually know more than they do.

I am 60 years old and have always lived an inner city life. The views you have about my country do not resonate in the slightest with me, and yet you still insist on posting such apparently factual dogmatic views. That's why I decided to call it a day because you insist on not even listening to people who live in the country you apparently know everything about.
You disparaged Thursday Next's post and state "The area of London that you used to live in? Did you move out along with all your other oh so tolerant, politically correct, indigenous British rendering your own capital city minority indigenous British in the process?"
Do you even realise how dismissive and even rude this sounds? and you wonder why people are not interested in engaging with you?

Really? This just made me smile. For goodness sake, let's have less of the drama. Amongst my wide and varied (in age, sex and ethnicity) group of acquaintances, I can't imagine any of them fleeing the country somehow.