Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/21/2020 at 11:53 AM, DevilDog said: 5) That Racist Bastard starved Millions of Indians and Bengalis: FUCK CHURCHILL. Like I said just his picture alone would equal all those pictures that NoleBull Posted. Churchill's policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says This Indian family arrived in Kolkata in 1943 in search of food. Winston Churchill's policies caused a famine that claimed more than 3 million Indian lives, according to a new study using soil analysis for the first time to prove the origins of the disaster. The 1943 Bengal famine was the only famine in modern Indian history not to occur as a result of serious drought, states the report, which was conducted by researchers in India and the United States. "This was a unique famine, caused by policy failure instead of any drought “Churchill is our hero because of his leadership in World War 2,” Polya writes, “but his immense crimes, notably the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine in which Churchill murdered 6-7 million Indians, have been deleted from history by extraordinary Anglo-American Denial.” 5. Another distorted view of events, which I guess makes you smartest in the class around here. (I will get to 4 later.) relative ignorance with a political agenda is a bad combination. War time sucks. People who actually saw action--like (1) my father, 3rd Division, Korea; all 20 months at the front, which was considered a combat zone (and which via the formula cut 4 months off his cozy stay); (2) my Uncle, Sgt. E-6 or E-7 Marine parachutist (para-marine, which was really special forces, equivalent to an Army Ranger at least) from 1937-45; 3 Purple Hearts (incl one for bayonet in leg at Guadalcanal while his halved battalion was merged with a decimated Raider battalion); hit 8 or so beaches, and landed on Okinawa on a submarine 10 hours before the attack (I wonder how he killed time during that 10 hrs?); and (3) father-in-law, Marine Cpl, 3rd Division, Guadalcanal, Guam, Bougainville, and Iwo; 1 Purple Heart--don't talk much about it because awful things like cursing, name-calling, and killing happen. FDR turned away Churchill's request for aid to India, and to Jewish refugees who sought our help. FDR sucks!!! Should we, Fuck FDR, too? No. You get judged by your body of work as a statesman on the world stage with an appreciation of time, place, and thought at that time. How will we judge Obama? In the 21st Century, he droned and bombed w/o due process. he killed hourly. he put our forces in 70% of the world's nations. He made Bush look like a piker. Human-rights groups disliked him. Hispanic groups disliked him for his tough stances on immigration and record-setting deportations. Do we use my approach of cutting slack here and there and look at the whole body of work, including accomplishments, or do we behave like a 15-yr-old SJW who doesn't know shit? Should I call you Greta Dog from now on? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study *** Food supplies to Bengal were reduced in the years preceding 1943 by natural disasters, outbreaks of infections in crops and the fall of Burma – now Myanmar – which was a major source of rice imports, into Japanese hands. But the [Indian] Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen argued in 1981 that there should still have been enough supplies to feed the region, and that the mass deaths came about as a combination of wartime inflation, speculative buying and panic hoarding, which together pushed the price of food out of the reach of poor Bengalis. More recent studies, including those by the journalist Madhushree Mukerjee, have argued the famine was exacerbated by the decisions of Winston Churchill’s wartime cabinet in London. *** Mukerjee and others also point to Britain’s “denial policy” in the region, in which huge supplies of rice and thousands of boats were confiscated from coastal areas of Bengal in order to deny resources to the Japanese army in case of a future invasion. https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/ *** There’s a good reason why Mayor Johnson omits the now-famous accusation that Churchill starved the Bengalis: it is not true. Alas, in the words of a wartime statesman, “a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on.”2 The charge stems from a 2009 book accusing Churchill of irresponsibility over Bengal that amounted to a war crime, repeated by scores of sources since. As Churchill once remarked, “I should think it was hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision.”3 The truth—documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College—is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.4 On receiving news of the spreading food shortage Churchill spoke to his Cabinet, saying he would welcome a statement by Lord Wavell, his new Viceroy of India, that his duty “was to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.” (Italics mine.)5 Churchill then wrote to Wavell personally: Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good.6 Again Churchill expressed his wish for “the best possible standard of living for the largest number of people.”7 Next Churchill turned to famine relief. Canada had offered aid, but in thanking Prime Minister MacKenzie King, Churchill noted a shipping problem: “Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India whereas it could be carried from Australia in 3 to 4 weeks.”8 At Churchill’s urging, Australia promised 350,000 tons of wheat. King still wanted to help. Churchill feared a resultant loss of war shipments between Canada and Australia,9 but King assured him there would be no shortfall. Canada’s contribution, he said, would pay “dividends in humanitarian aspects….”10 The famine continued into 1944, causing Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery to request one million tons of grain. Churchill, who had been studying consumption statistics, now believed India was receiving more than she would need. He remained concerned about the shipping problem, “given the effect of its diversion alike on operations and on our imports of food into this country, which could be further reduced only at the cost of much suffering.”11 The Cabinet cited other causes of the famine rarely mentioned in latter-day denunciations of Churchill: the shortages were “partly political in character, caused by Marwari supporters of Congress [Gandhi’s party] in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal.” Another cause, they added, was corrupt local officials: “The Government of India were unduly tender with speculators and hoarders.”12 Amery and Wavell continued to press for wheat, and in the Cabinet of February 14th Churchill tried to accommodate them. While shipping difficulties were “very real,” Churchill said, he was “most anxious that we should do everything possible to ease the Viceroy’s position. No doubt the Viceroy felt that if this corner could be turned, the position next year would be better.” Churchill added that “refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations.”13 The war pressed Britain on all sides; shipping was needed everywhere. Indeed, at the same time as India was demanding another million tons, Churchill was fending off other demands: “I have been much concerned at the apparently excessive quantities of grain demanded by Allied HQ for civilians in Italy, which impose a great strain on our shipping and finances,” he wrote War Secretary Sir James Grigg. “Will you let me have, at the earliest possible moment…estimates of the amount of food which is really needed….”14 Churchill and his Cabinet continued to struggle to meet India’s needs. While certain that shipping on the scale Amery wanted was impossible without a “dangerous inroad into the British import programme or a serious interference with operational plans,” the Cabinet grasped at every straw, recommending: (a) A further diversion to India of the shipments of food grains destined for the Balkan stockpile in the Middle East. This might amount to 50,000 tons, but would need War Cabinet approval, while United States reactions would also have to be ascertained; (b) There would be advantage if ships carrying military or civil cargo from the United States or Australia to India could also take a quantity of bagged wheat.15 A month later Churchill was hoping India had turned the corner when his Minister of War Transport, Frederick Leathers, reported “statistically a surplus of food grains in India.” Still, Leathers emphasized “the need for imported wheat on psychological grounds.” What were they? Amery explained that “the peasant in 750,000 villages” might hold back “his small parcel of grain” if no outside aid was in sight. He said he could ship 200,000 tons, “provided that the twenty-five ships required were surplus to the Army’s needs.” But Amery wanted double that quantity.16 Again trying to help, the Cabinet suggested that India had underestimated its rice crop. While agreeing to send the 200,000 tons, Churchill told Amery he could get another 150,000 tons from Ceylon in exchange for excess rice: “The net effect, counting 50,000 tons previously arranged [was] 400,000 tons of wheat.”17 In April, it was Lord Wavell asking not for 400,000 but 724,000 tons! Now the problem was unseasonable weather and a deadly explosion in the Bombay Docks, which destroyed 50,000 tons of food grains. Peasants were still holding back their crops, he said; rumors were circulating “that London had refused to ask America for help.” The exasperated Cabinet retorted: “If we now approached the United States and they were unable to help, it would at least dispel that allegation.”18 One can sense Churchill’s frustration. Whatever they did, however they wriggled, they could not appease the continued demands from India—even after calculations showed that the shortage had been eased. Churchill agreed to write President Roosevelt for help, and replace the 45,000 tons lost in the explosion. But he “could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.”19 As good as his word, and despite preoccupation with the upcoming invasion of France, Churchill wrote FDR. No one, reading his words, can be in doubt about his sympathies: I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more. I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help.20 Roosevelt replied that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”21 [WAR TIME SUCKS, HUH? CAN’T EVEN COUNT ON OLD FDR, WHO AGAIN TURNED AWAY JEWISH REFUGEES DURING WWII ARGUABLY KNOWING THAT THERE WAS A HOLOCAUST GOING ON. LEADERSHIP’S HARD, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED CONTEXT AND A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, NOT AMATUER SELECTIVE HISTORY.] There is no doubt that in those fraught weeks Churchill said things off the record (but duly recorded by subordinates) that were unworthy of him, out of exasperation and the press of war on many fronts. There is no evidence that Churchill wished any Indian to starve; on the contrary, he did his best to help them, amidst a war to the death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/21/2020 at 3:29 PM, World Citizen said: My bs detector instantly went off too. I would hate to see his thoughts if he was knocking Obama. There is just so much wrong with it. tell me about it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: Interesting.stuff. It's definitely going to send me off to find some works written about Churchill. I never cared to dig much outside of what I learned of him in various history classes. It's also interesting to see the different takes on him. I suppose a lot of people/leaders from that time could be found as having been racist. Probably a good many unapologetic as well, but, somehow, taught history likes to gloss over some things as it pertains to some of heroes that have been placed on pedestals in those history books. There certainly is no doubt that every leader has their struggles. Especially in a country with such an even ideological division such as ours. He had successes and failures. E.g., Nixon and LBJ are considered war criminals to human-rights groups for killing about 80,000 Vietnamese together. He was in Parliament for 55 yrs. That's a long time. He was a Minister for 31 yrs. He was Prime Minister for almost 9 yrs. He was at or fought in 15 battles, winning 14 campaign medals. He was prominent in WWI, and dominant in WWII. The architect. He published nearly 10-million words. Empires weren't nice. He didn't create it; I think that he helped dismantle it. Some accusations were false. Some are vigorously debated. There is truth in some. And some bad things were left out. NOTHING GOOD was mentioned at all, though. I don't think that his fan base comes from former colonies, which are doing shit right now even with the Brits long gone, keeping genocide and slavery and bigotry alive and well. And going back decades, when the Brits got to India, widows were still being burned at the stake. That was tradition. The Brits were cultural imperialists for outlawing it. You can NOT take on that titanic of a figure using low-level, agenda-driven, hit-and-run attacks, while ignoring how the whole rest of the world behaved then and behaves now. I didn't read 85% of this thread, but how Churchill's name came up is odd, and generally, nowadays, reflects the notion of "class struggle" being modified to deal with new political subjects--women; national, racial, and sexual minorities; and anti-institutional movements, all clearly of an anti-capital nature--in a quest for power. The Hard Left isn't against power; they just want it in their hands. Let's see how they do with it. I'm not holding my breath. DD might not be aware, or only vaguely so, but that's the heart of the matter. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Testadura said: [...] He published nearly 10-million words. [...] "In the summer of the Roman year 699, now described as the year 55 before the birth of Christ, the Proconsul of Gaul, Gaius Julius Caesar, turned his gaze upon Britain." --Churchill. When he wasn't fighting Hitler and the Nazis, he was winning the Nobel Prize in Literature. And we still use his written work to teach people how to write. You can't read his stuff or listen to his speeches without wanting the power to write like he could. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 Certainly context makes a difference when discussing people, leaders and the like. What is/can be a societal norm from the past is hardly a societal norm today, so, to some extent, we have to look at the past through that lens. What was a normal thing then is often long in the past. Especially things that you mention like some terminology and that. I'll stand by my assertion that it's still just like 1982 right now, on prepgridiron.com back pages, today. The players aren't the same, but the ideologies still exist. I remember progressives being excited and happy when Obama was elected as they thought that was the surest sign that bigotry and supremecy were in the rearview, or at worst pushed out of the mainstream. When I watched that video, the old guy looked at the grand dragon and told him that they were defeated. His type I assume. Here we are today discussing the almost exact same thing, learning that it isn't defeated, even after having a person of color as president and thinking that to have been the harbinger of the demise of that ideology. Complacency is the enemy of any ideology. The moment you think you can let off the gas, you realize it's still right there, even if you didn't hear it behind you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 38 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Certainly context makes a difference when discussing people, leaders and the like. What is/can be a societal norm from the past is hardly a societal norm today, so, to some extent, we have to look at the past through that lens. What was a normal thing then is often long in the past. Especially things that you mention like some terminology and that. I'll stand by my assertion that it's still just like 1982 right now, on prepgridiron.com back pages, today. The players aren't the same, but the ideologies still exist. I remember progressives being excited and happy when Obama was elected as they thought that was the surest sign that bigotry and supremecy were in the rearview, or at worst pushed out of the mainstream. When I watched that video, the old guy looked at the grand dragon and told him that they were defeated. His type I assume. Here we are today discussing the almost exact same thing, learning that it isn't defeated, even after having a person of color as president and thinki g that to have been the harbinger of the demise of that ideology. Complacency is the enemy of any ideology. The moment you think you can let off the gas, you realize it's still right there, even if you didn't hear it behind you. For 4 weeks, I tried a case against a former US Atty of NJ but before he was the USA. I was a reference of his. We are friends. My wife also knows him from being an Assistant USA for several yrs in that NJ office. (BTW, her special intake area was civil-rights crimes.) Well into his 2 terms of being NJ's USA, I was at an AJC dinner in which he was being honored (deservedly), and 1 of the his prosecution highlights expressed during his awards speech was prosecuting 2 central-NJ 18-yr-olds for burning a Cross on a lawn of a house owned by a Jewish person. This was up there with the major prosecutions, he celebrated. Very proud of it. Those kids were losers. No threat by historical standards to minorities. Jobless. Undereducated. Powerless--relatively, except when they had matches and kindling. But they got stomped out but good, and they should have. But the way that those 2 losers was presented was overkill; it was as if they were threatening NJ's very existence and a harbinger to a return to past eras (not eras in NJ for the most part, though). And we in the audience were supposed to breathe a sigh of relief that these 2 villains were no longer free to run with impunity throughout and victimize our countryside by desecrating lawns. Then, on this past MLK Day, I'm watching "Mississippi Burning," and the Klan. They ran things. They weren't losers (they were losers, but not in the central-NJ sense) and disempowered like the above 2 jerks. They ran or influenced greatly the police force, state and local prosecuting agencies, state courts, local and state politics, state judiciaries, businesses, etc. Wow, something changed, but we speak as if nothing's changed--like its Jim Crow, and 2 losers burning a Cross, for which they are being severely and promptly punished, are akin to the strange fruit swinging from Southern trees. I think that our 2-term President a couple of years ago was 1/2 black. Liberal democracy and the Constitution work. Sometimes, it takes way too long. But communism, totalitarianism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, etc., don't work nearly as well. Civil rights was a promise long unfulfilled--unfinished business left by our Founders for easy-to-understand reasons. So, toothless Grand Dragons aren't nice (they're ignorant and despicable but relatively toothless), but I'm also afraid of Baltimore, Detroit, the failed inner-city schools, the rankings the US has in education by int'l standards, the further vanishing jobs, the income gap, suicides, drug abuse, the lack of religion, morality, ethics, and culture, the decline of the family, etc. Essentially, the decline of this Country, which unfortunately is no longer debatable. I don't expect anyone to agree. I'm trying to convince no one, and I'm sure I'm wrong and facing the wrong direction. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 https://www.yahoo.com/news/machete-attack-stuart-outten-152758223.html Mohammed Rodwan (probably not English just a hunch) charged with a machete attack on Britain’s hardest cop in the UK. Isn’t diversity great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Testadura said: For 4 weeks, I tried a case against a former US Atty of NJ but before he was the USA. I was a reference of his. We are friends. My wife also knows him from being an Assistant USA for several yrs in that NJ office. (BTW, her special intake area was civil-rights crimes.) Well into his 2 terms of being NJ's USA, I was at an AJC dinner in which he was being honored (deservedly), and 1 of the his prosecution highlights expressed during his awards speech was prosecuting 2 central-NJ 18-yr-olds for burning a Cross on a lawn of a house owned by a Jewish person. This was up there with the major prosecutions, he celebrated. Very proud of it. Those kids were losers. No threat by historical standards to minorities. Jobless. Undereducated. Powerless--relatively, except when they had matches and kindling. But they got stomped out but good, and they should have. But the way that those 2 losers was presented was overkill; it was as if they were threatening NJ's very existence and a harbinger to a return to past eras (not eras in NJ for the most part, though). And we in the audience were supposed to breathe a sigh of relief that these 2 villains were no longer free to run with impunity throughout and victimize our countryside by desecrating lawns. Then, on this past MLK Day, I'm watching "Mississippi Burning," and the Klan. They ran things. They weren't losers (they were losers, but not in the central-NJ sense) and disempowered like the above 2 jerks. They ran or influenced greatly the police force, state and local prosecuting agencies, state courts, local and state politics, state judiciaries, businesses, etc. Wow, something changed, but we speak as if nothing's changed--like its Jim Crow, and 2 losers burning a Cross, which they are being severely and promptly punished for, are akin to the strange fruit swinging from Southern trees. I think that our 2-term President a couple of years ago was 1/2 black. Liberal democracy and the Constitution work. Sometimes, it takes way too long. But communism, totalitarianism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, etc., don't work nearly as well. Civil rights was a promise long unfulfilled--unfinished business left by our Founders for easy-to-understand reasons. So, toothless Grand Dragons aren't nice (they're ignorant and despicable but relatively toothless), but I'm also afraid of Baltimore, Detroit, the failed inner-city schools, the rankings the US has in education by int'l standards, the further vanishing jobs, the income gap, the lack of religion, morality, ethics, and culture, etc. Essentially, the decline of this Country, which unfortunately is not longer debatable. I don't expect anyone to agree. I'm trying to convince no one, and I'm sure I'm wrong and facing the wrong direction. Sometimes things are sensationalized, as you mention the two kids who burned the cross story being sensationalized to exalt your friend, but, at the same time, we really must stomp out those fires as we see them start, else we suffer the rise again, and again and again. What has no teeth today can grow into a monsterous beast with teeth like we've never seen tomorrow. Interesting story about the two burning the cross actually. I loosely knew a kid that went to school with my brother who is a couple of years behind me, that went to prison for a hate crime like that. He wasn't the brightest bulb, and as you mentioned of those two you talk about, wasn't from any prominent family. His accomplice was a man twice his age, and also not a bright bulb, I think even considered slightly retarded. Tinkers on small engines and lives in what is sold basically as a utility shed, still to this day. (The similarities to sling blade are not lost on me, but, I swear this to be true). They went late at night and burned a cross on an interracial couple's lawn in their same general neighborhood after having the older guy have words with them over something once. Anyway, the 18 yr. old gets 15 years to do, and the old guy, not sure if he ever saw a cell due to his mental condition, although the younger kid was not much smarter and was likely influenced by the older guy. That's neither here nor there on this subject really, just an interesting parallel to what you said. We all come from different places, have different life experiences and etc., but, at the same time we are none too different. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Mjd33 said: https://www.yahoo.com/news/machete-attack-stuart-outten-152758223.html Mohammed Rodwan (probably not English just a hunch) charged with a machete attack on Britain’s hardest cop in the UK. Isn’t diversity great? Ignorance. I guess, that's a wrap folks. All the riddles of the world solved with an ignorant drive by from some ignorant dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Sometimes things are sensationalized, as you mention the two kids who burned the cross story being sensationalized to exalt your friend, but, at the same time, we really must stomp out those fires as we see them start, else we suffer the rise again, and again and again. What has no teeth today can grow into a monsterous beast with teeth like we've never seen tomorrow. Interesting story about the two burning the cross actually. I loosely knew a kid that went to school with my brother who is a couple of years behind me, that went to prison for a hate crime like that. He wasn't the brightest bulb, and as you mentioned of those two you talk about, wasn't from any prominent family. His accomplice was a man twice his age, and also not a bright bulb, I think even considered slightly retarded. Tinkers on small engines and lives in what is sold basically as a utility shed, still to this day. (The similarities to sling blade are not lost on me, but, I swear this to be true). They went late at night and burned a cross on an interracial couple's lawn in their same general neighborhood after having the older guy have words with them over something once. Anyway, the 18 yr. old gets 15 years to do, and the old guy, not sure if he ever saw a cell due to his mental condition, although the younger kid was not much smarter and was likely influenced by the older guy. That's neither here nor there on this subject really, just an interesting parallel to what you said. We all come from different places, have different life experiences and etc., but, at the same time we are none too different. Compare the 15 bricks the guy you knew has to do after committing no physical injuries to the sentence that MJD's felon will get for, let's face it, attempted murder on a cop with a deadly weapon. The cop could not have been more professional and decent before, during, and after. Apples to bowling balls, though. Michael Wolfe, habitual offender, committed a misdemeanor with a hate-crime enhancement for putting bacon in a mosque along with damaging it. 15 yrs inside, plus 15 yrs probation. no physical injuries. again, apples to bowling balls, but ... People aren't stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 43 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Ignorance. I guess, that's a wrap folks. All the riddles of the world solved with an ignorant drive by from some ignorant dude. So Will Mohammed be allowed to stay in your guest room after he gets out in 6 months cupcake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 24 minutes ago, Testadura said: Compare the 15 bricks the guy you knew has to do after committing no physical injuries to the sentence that MJD's felon will get for, let's face it, attempted murder on a cop with a deadly weapon. The cop could not have been more professional and decent before, during, and after. Apples to bowling balls, though. Michael Wolfe, habitual offender, committed a misdemeanor with a hate-crime enhancement for putting bacon in a mosque along with damaging it. 15 yrs inside, plus 15 yrs probation. no physical injuries. again, apples to bowling balls, but ... People aren't stupid. Well, one of these crimes happened in the UK and one happened here in the US, correct? Not sure how they deal with "hate" crimes over there really, but, clearly we deal with them harshly here when there is a preponderance of evidence that the intent meets hate crime levels. Right? It doesn't change the fact that MJD's post is much more ignorant than the one you took offense to of DD, yet, MJD gets a pass and even a reference as if, maybe you "got me." Like I said, once the ignorance hits, that's a wrap from me. Appreciate the decent correspondence for a few posts though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Like I said, once the ignorance hits, that's a wrap from me Back to your safe space and coloring books you go princess. I’ll PM you Mohammed’s inmate # when I find it so you can donate some money for him to buy pork and toilet paper at the prison commissary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 52 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Well, one of these crimes happened in the UK and one happened here in the US, correct? Not sure how they deal with "hate" crimes over there really, but, clearly we deal with them harshly here when there is a preponderance of evidence that the intent meets hate crime levels. Right? It doesn't change the fact that MJD's post is much more ignorant than the one you took offense to of DD, yet, MJD gets a pass and even a reference as if, maybe you "got me." Like I said, once the ignorance hits, that's a wrap from me. Appreciate the decent correspondence for a few posts though. Perhaps lines crossed. I simply read the linked article--that's all. Now, I just read the whole post. I haven't said 1 thing about diversity. I said, apples to bowling balls 2x. I made the comparisons in crimes only to show that we are addressing your above concerns: "really must stomp out those fires as we see them start, else we suffer the rise again, and again and again. What has no teeth today can grow into a monsterous beast with teeth like we've never seen tomorrow." Great Britain is even more scrupulous than we are. I added the comment to say that not everyone is fine with the obvious overkill and paying a disproportionate price to recompense for the sins of others perhaps generations ago. It's a wrap for me, too. I just came back to deal with DD's post, and disappear. There are several I will let slide. It was a mistake coming on this side before and today, and I knew it before I did it. I hung on a bit longer to banter with you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 51 minutes ago, Mjd33 said: Back to your safe space and coloring books you go princess. I’ll PM you Mohammed’s inmate # when I find it so you can donate some money for him to buy pork and toilet paper at the prison commissary. Whatever you say Grand Dragon. I'll leave you to your duties here at your chapter, handing out pamphlets that say things like "tired of muslims following you home to beat you up, then join your local chapter of the invisible empire." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, Testadura said: Perhaps lines crossed. I simply read the linked article--that's all. Now, I just read the whole post. I haven't said 1 thing about diversity. I said, apples to bowling balls 2x. I made the comparisons in crimes only to show that we are addressing your above concerns: "really must stomp out those fires as we see them start, else we suffer the rise again, and again and again. What has no teeth today can grow into a monsterous beast with teeth like we've never seen tomorrow." Great Britain is even more scrupulous than we are. I added the comment to say that not everyone is fine with the obvious overkill and paying a disproportionate price to recompense for the sins of others perhaps generations ago. It's a wrap for me, too. I just came back to deal with DD's post, and disappear. There are several I will let slide. It was a mistake coming on this side before and today, and I knew it before I did it. I hung on a bit longer to banter with you. Yes, we can point at a lot of obvious disproportionate sentences all over the place. Hell, there are guys getting virtual life sentences for selling drugs. It's all relative imo. How many others are hurt by the crime is how I think the courts are prosecuting these things. In some instances they are definitely too heavy handed in sentences. Many would point out that it often goes more heavily against people of color, or the crimes they are more likely to be committing. When a someone burns a cross in a person's yard, it harkens back to times not too distant in the past, where people of color were lynched, dragged behind horses and all other manner of evil things by klansmen, so, when a cross gets burned today, no matter how ignorant of what it means historically the person burning it is, it puts an entire community of people in fear. Hence there is a heavy handed punishment, because people should not have to live in that fear having come from where they have come from. Just the angle I see that heavy prosecution from. The crack dealer suffers a similar heavy handed punishment because the poison he peddles destroys communities, not just the single person he sold to. Again, just the angle I see it from. Has there been some lesser level of prosecution to any muslim terrorist that has enacted a hate crime here in America? Maybe there has been, but Idk of it. None of that makes what Grand Dragon Mjd33 of Bergen Catholic is preaching any better than what that Wilkinson fellow was preaching in that video I posted. Not one little bit. I see the same face when I look at their words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said: Whatever you say Grand Dragon. I'll leave you to your duties here at your chapter, handing out pamphlets that say things like "tired of muslims following you home to beat you up, then join your local chapter of the invisible empire." Speaking of Muslims, I read in Ilhan Omar’s district robberies are up 46% she started in office. I’m not sure if that was before or after she stopped fucking her brother but quite a crime surge don’t you think? Not to mention, did you know that her district in Minneapolis is the number 1 terrorist recruitment nucleus in the entire United States of America? .... but hey, that’s probably just a coincidence right? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 More people in Omar’s district/jurisdiction have tried to join terrorist organizations than in any other district in the entire fucking country. But the democrats don’t care. Orange man bad! Play in traffic you clown. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 Fuck off grand dragon. I've got your clown swinging between my knees, why don't you come honk his nose after you get your sheets dry cleaned before your next rally. Ignorant mother fucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 I've never been around a bunch of open fucking racists/bigots anywhere than on this OT section and I live in south Georgia. That's fucking sad. Look at the klan members cosigning with the grand dragon too. Wtf. New Jersey and the private academies up there must be a breeding ground for that shit. Then folks try to stereotype the south ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 11 hours ago, Testadura said: He had successes and failures. E.g., Nixon and LBJ are considered war criminals to human-rights groups for killing about 80,000 Vietnamese together. He was in Parliament for 55 yrs. That's a long time. He was a Minister for 31 yrs. He was Prime Minister for almost 9 yrs. He was at or fought in 15 battles, winning 14 campaign medals. He was prominent in WWI, and dominant in WWII. The architect. He published nearly 10-million words. Empires weren't nice. He didn't create it; I think that he helped dismantle it. Some accusations were false. Some are vigorously debated. There is truth in some. And some bad things were left out. NOTHING GOOD was mentioned at all, though. I don't think that his fan base comes from former colonies, which are doing shit right now even with the Brits long gone, keeping genocide and slavery and bigotry alive and well. And going back decades, when the Brits got to India, widows were still being burned at the stake. That was tradition. The Brits were cultural imperialists for outlawing it. You can NOT take on that titanic of a figure using low-level, agenda-driven, hit-and-run attacks, while ignoring how the whole rest of the world behaved then and behaves now. I didn't read 85% of this thread, but how Churchill's name came up is odd, and generally, nowadays, reflects the notion of "class struggle" being modified to deal with new political subjects--women; national, racial, and sexual minorities; and anti-institutional movements, all clearly of an anti-capital nature--in a quest for power. The Hard Left isn't against power; they just want it in their hands. Let's see how they do with it. I'm not holding my breath. DD might not be aware, or only vaguely so, but that's the heart of the matter. Yeah a man at the forefront of a Nation that once ruled 25% of the world uninvited by all is a bigot and a racist IMHO. You stick by your belief of him and I will stick by mine. That's fair by any assessment. Indians didn't need any Brit to come and help them. That's Colonial paternal nonsense to cover their racism. Those damn racist wiped a whole race of people off the earth called the Tasmanians and if you Think the British Raj in India was not racist that will explain why you would lean more toward His-Story than I would. I get it and understand why one would lean that way. Believe me I do. I think the Founding Racist were hypocrites and devoid of morality. You probably consider them the Founding Fathers who wrote a document 2nd only to the Bible. The dark side of Winston Churchill’s legacy no one should forget. This Swine Eater was a Racist. In the West, Churchill is a freedom fighter, the man who grimly withstood Nazism and helped save Western liberal democracy. It's a civilizational legacy that has been polished and placed on a mantle for decades. To many outside the West, he remains a grotesque racist and a stubborn imperialist, forever on the wrong side of history. "I hate Indians," he once trumpeted. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." Churchill's racism was wrapped up in his Tory zeal for empire, one which irked his wartime ally, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As a junior member of parliament, Churchill had cheered on Britain's plan for more conquests, insisting that its "Aryan stock is bound to triumph. I wholeheartedly say he was a damn racist. Of course the West Loves him no one is better at Revisionism and B.S. History.. Your Paragons of Liberty were Slave owners 🤣 DD Understands plenty sir. And I am neither Demoncrat or a RepubliKKKan. They are the same people in Blue or Red colors parroting an ASS or Pachyderm. I enjoyed reading your posts and I respect your points of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 12 hours ago, Testadura said: He had successes and failures. E.g., Nixon and LBJ are considered war criminals to human-rights groups for killing about 80,000 Vietnamese together. He was in Parliament for 55 yrs. That's a long time. He was a Minister for 31 yrs. He was Prime Minister for almost 9 yrs. He was at or fought in 15 battles, winning 14 campaign medals. He was prominent in WWI, and dominant in WWII. The architect. He published nearly 10-million words. Empires weren't nice. He didn't create it; I think that he helped dismantle it. Some accusations were false. Some are vigorously debated. There is truth in some. And some bad things were left out. NOTHING GOOD was mentioned at all, though. I don't think that his fan base comes from former colonies, which are doing shit right now even with the Brits long gone, keeping genocide and slavery and bigotry alive and well. And going back decades, when the Brits got to India, widows were still being burned at the stake. That was tradition. The Brits were cultural imperialists for outlawing it. You can NOT take on that titanic of a figure using low-level, agenda-driven, hit-and-run attacks, while ignoring how the whole rest of the world behaved then and behaves now. I didn't read 85% of this thread, but how Churchill's name came up is odd, and generally, nowadays, reflects the notion of "class struggle" being modified to deal with new political subjects--women; national, racial, and sexual minorities; and anti-institutional movements, all clearly of an anti-capital nature--in a quest for power. The Hard Left isn't against power; they just want it in their hands. Let's see how they do with it. I'm not holding my breath. DD might not be aware, or only vaguely so, but that's the heart of the matter. It came up by me opposing someone posting a bunch of pictures of people of color to illuminate how they are destroying Europe. And I said I can post one picture of Churchill and he will have caused more damage to POC than all of those combined and a few posts later you felt obliged to post be kind to Churchill. I stick by my original assessment. Somehow those that have lied and revised History the most have become a hard sell to me. But that's just me most buy the B.S. hook, line and sinker. This type of Colonial B.S. He indeed was involved in their Starvation. I have female friend who is from Bangladesh. Care to guess what she thinks of him During the Bengal famine of 1943, Churchill even said that because Indians bred "like rabbits", relief efforts would accomplish nothing. His War Cabinet rejected Canadian proposals to send food aid to India, but did ask Australia to send such aid instead. However, records from the British War Office show no ships carrying food supplies that were dispatched from Australia for famine-stricken India. According to historian Arthur Herman, Churchill's overarching concern was the ongoing Second World War, and he was thus willing to divert food supplies from India to Allied military campaigns. According to other defenders of Churchill, he was a "liberal imperialist". He saw his country's role as an imperial power as spreading liberal principles to "backward-looking societies" like India And his thoughts on Arabs. He wanted to Gas them. I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected He also described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation of humanity" than the Jews who he treated a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 This Mjd33 ignoramus is a lawyer or something if I'm not totally mistaken. Right? How many years did he have to go to school to be that fucking ignorant? Run multiple profiles on this website and be a bigot from one and troll from the other. Too damned ignorant to see Mohammed in himself when he looks in the mirror. If we marginalize Mjd33 for long enough, he'll pick up a machete too. His solution for keeping marginalized people from picking up a machete is to marginalize them further. Keep hating people because you are too ignorant to see they are the same as you, keep marginalizing them, and keep lashing out at people that aren't as ignorant as yourself. That's exactly what I'd expect from you anyway. I play a video of the grand dragon of the klan, and by God, an idiot will show up, puff out his chest and act just like the guy, probably not realizing he is even doing it. So far in this thread we've got the grand dragon, the kleagle and a few recruits. That's exactly what this OT section has become. A recruiting page for the damned 2020 version kkk. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolebull813 Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 The problem is you lefties just scream diversity is a strength and cite random isolated instances throughout history as justifying open borders and mass immigration. That’s ignorant. The country can not sustain that type of infusion no matter how virtuous you feel. For every Indian doctor who comes here to make the country better there are 1,000 low skilled immigrants who have anchor babies and put strains on our hospitals and schools. Every penny spent on illegals could be going to American citizens in similar situations. We need to take care of our own before taking care of everyone else this stuff is common sense to the point that people who disagree usually do it because of politics and they want democrats in power, or they simply hate the country. The virtue signaling is a bullshit excuse 4 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.