The dim future of Britain
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
And that makes it all right?
You couldn't defend yourself if you wanted.
That's why you're not really a citizen but still just a SUBJECT.
My mistake then :e4e:
This is where we part ways, it is not "bravado" to expect people from other cultures that wish to dwell amongst your own culture to assimilate. Assimilation does not mean shedding yourself of your cultural identity but, it sure as hell means that you leave your cultural ideologies that encroach upon rights & freedoms of the host country's citizens, constitution, & laws behind, or at a minimum keep them to yourself if they encroach on the rights & freedoms of others. For instance, there is no place for sharia in this nation, and when you come here you assimilate to laws & constitution of this land, or leave, and go back to your barbaric, throwback, violent culture in your own country. We have a country that is defined under our constitution, our laws, our customs, there is no room to accommodate the laws & customs of your home nation because it fits a particular worldview... and really, if that is what you want, go home. That in a nutshell is what the expectation of assimilation is, allegiance to this country's constitution, and if your allegiance lies elsewhere why are you even here?
No it is not just about the violent piece of it although that is a big piece. Correct me if I am wrong but, you seem to be asserting that Americans assimilate to the ideologies, customs and cultural beliefs of foreigners. People coming into this nation (or even other American citizens that have opposing ideologies) have no expectation that the citizenry as a whole recognize the laws, customs, or ideologies that are in conflict with this nations laws, customs, or national identity. Nobody has the expectation that their personal beliefs be recognized outside of the force of law & the constitution. Are you understanding what we are allegiant to yet? it isn't a government, it is an idea called America defined within that document, the constitution.
Well if the best you got is sarcasm, and a lack of, or refusal to understand what is meant by assimilation that would be on you. I believe you know exactly what the concept of assimilation, i.e. "the melting pot" is and are being deliberately obtuse about it... Maybe not, but it is appearing that way.
glorydaz
Well-known member
There is some powerful truth smacking. :thumb:
She didn't lose the election but, she might as well have, they are already calling for her resignation. The plot thickens...
She lost her majority. I have to admit to not knowing the Westminster system well enough to know what happens next. If she doesn't step down, I'd assume she would face a potential vote of no confidence. Or she might need to form a coalition.
DavidK
New member
Thank you, your response is a lot more nuanced than most of what I've been reading in this conversation over several threads.
If I understand what you're saying, there is a problem with defining the boundaries of a nations customs and national identity to know where the conflict lies. National laws, customs, and national identity are fluid, and the Constitution is specifically designed to acknowledge that, including within it instruments for changing it.
At this point, a lot of conservatives feel that the current laws, customs, and national identity has morphed into something different than they desire, and different than once was. If the those things continue to drift in a liberal, humanistic direction, at what threshold to they no longer become welcome in the US because they do not want to recognize the prevailing customs or ideologies?
That's where the test comes in. If a Muslim is happy to work toward making the US reflect Islam but do it within our current constitutional structure, he is every bit as "American" as someone who wants to make it reflect conservative Christianity.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i dunno about britain, but minority governments don't tend to last long in canada
i wonder if they could hold a second referendum on brexit :think:
maybe it could be a perennial issue, like quebec separatism :chuckle:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Probably.....
Arthur....... A football hooligan with a 'NF' background and a horrendous record of 'on' and 'off' stadium violence, in the UK and abroad, has been speaking about how he has been 'dealt with'.
Apparently he had his passport revoked, has been banned from using Rail Travel, banned from every football stadium in the entire UK, has to report to his local Police Station on certain Saturdays, + had a range of other sentences includiong tagging for several months with a curfew......... and he wonders why we aren't using some of these hindrances on 'high-risk' individuals.
Of course he got charged, tried and convicted.... several times, which is different from a 'suspected risk', but I do like the idea of tagging high-risks.... it's just a question of what somebody has to do to be defined as a high-risk.
What do you think of tagging? I think some of these systems are even fitted with EPIRBs now?
:think:
I think you might be onto something. Where it comes to 'high risk' then I'd say anybody supporting - or even sympathetic to radical extremism could qualify. How this could be put into practice...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay, as far as 'assimilation' goes then I agree that those who settle into the West abide by and respect the country's laws. Most do which has gotten lost with some of the far right here seeing extremists every time they see a turban or something. Add to that the crackpots who would destroy all mosques etc. Now if I'm reading you right, then you have no problem with Muslims in America provided they adopt the laws of the land and they can still worship as they see fit. If so there's not really much of a point of contention between us.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
She's on borrowed time, that's for sure. Effectively this was a disaster for the conservatives and May fought a very ineffectual campaign, refusing to make public appearances for the most part. It's almost as if she thought it was an assured victory for the Tories from the moment of calling the election - a dangerous thing to do in politics, especially in the current climate.
My prediction is that the antichrist will appease all soon with false peace after islamic attacks grow worse and worse. We (believers) wont be here to see it.
Gee, i wonder why that would be? *thinks*
It works for liberals, just give them space to destroy, a coloring book, crayons, kleenex and a safe room.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You couldn't be closer to Daesh's ideology short of reciting the Shahada and emigrsting to the territory they control. You literally have adopted the same georeligious paradigm, only the opposing side.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
I admit I don't get it either, we will have to watch it unfold, like I said the plot thickens.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It is different to the American system but essentially the conservatives didn't win the sufficient number of seats in order to govern outright. Technically they still 'won' the election but lost the majority vote that they were surely expecting. They lost ground with the electorate instead of gaining support and politically speaking it was a disaster for the Tories. Even if they'd scraped over the line in order to be elected government it would still have been dismal for them.
No problem, I enjoy a good conversation without too many battle lines being drawn, though I admit I have hard lines I will defend.
No, I do not believe in open borders or undefined boundaries, I believe a country is defined by it's borders, laws, language, national identity, internal customs, etc., I also believe that the constitution defines it, and it is concrete aside of that document being changed. There is a reason it is difficult to change it as well, it takes a huge consensus, and spoils the attempts of sects to do so by a small majority.
I don't believe that America will exist, or at least as a free democratic nation if the marxist liberal humanists are able to change the constitution as they desire. If they do manage to change it into their socialistic utopia it will no longer be they that are unwelcome but, those that believe in this nation & it's constitution that will be unwelcome...hence the ongoing culture war to keep that from happening.
I would venture to say, if a muslim could work toward making the US reflect Islam but do it within our current constitutional structure without violent insurrection you would be correct but, now we are delving into "what if's". That is not what is happening now is it?