James105

So fringe online message groups now are the arbiters of what becomes a racist gesture, from an innocuous phrase such as "its okay to be white" or the even more ridiculous Ok gesture which has always and will continue to mean... Ok. I have no doubt these groups see it as an amusing game to see what harmless gesture they can get the useful idiots to consider to be outlawed next. You can indulge in newspeak if you wish to do so if makes you feel virtuous, but this is a hard pass from me.

A very, very quick google search suggest that this cost should be about £65,000 on a learjet. https://www.iasmedical.com/asia/air-ambulance-thailand/#:~:text=Our medical transportation services from,The number of medics required Not surprised the insurance are questioning this.

What fresh nonsense is this? An Ok gesture is racist as well now? The narrative here should be that a significant percentage of black people in America take the view that it's not okay for people to be born with the immutable characteristic of white skin which is definitely, unquestionably, undoubtably a racist viewpoint, rather than the fact that a cartoonist put his head above the parapet and called this out for what this is - racism. And giving the thumbs up or an ok gesture with your hand is as far from racism as I can possibly imagine something to be. Are deaf people still allowed to use this gesture in sign language or are they all racists now? This is how stupid it is to claim innocuous gestures or phrases are "racist". Maybe the self flagellating left wokies should reflect on how they have created this racial divisiveness in society today after decades of improving race relations and undoing all this progress. I am pondering whether people on the left are as stupid as they appear to be or are exactly the thing they claim not to be and want to go back to a time where racism was commonplace.

The colour of the skin of the people I associate with is their least important characteristic. Only racists judge people on the colour of their skin.

I don't know any racial groups of people alive today who were alive centuries ago who I would agree were treated poorly. I only know those who were and are given the same equal opportunities (backed up by law) as everyone else. Perhaps you are extremely old and knew people who suffered this kind of persecution or perhaps were/are guilty of classing other racial groups as inferior. Everyone I know from all racial groups has had the same equality of opportunity as I have so I would say none of them.

I personally could not care less how many links you provide from the easily offended on this as it makes no logical sense why this phrase is considered racist. The phrase is innocuous and if the alternative version of "its okay to be black" is not considered offensive then it is literally impossible for me to consider that "its okay to be white" to be in any way offensive.

The phrase "its okay to be white" is not racist in the same way that "its okay to be black" is not racist so I have no idea what point you are attempting to make.

It's ridiculous to associate a phrase as innocuous as "its okay to be white" with white supremacist groups and expect others to know this. No-one outside of these groups or who doesn't follow lefty woke news that informs the wokies of the latest things to get offended over would have any idea of its association with such a minuscule group of people. Words that are not racist are still not racist no matter whose mouth they come out of.

Apparently one of the changes was to call the fat guy 'enormous' instead of 'fat' in the chocolate factory book. Do fatties prefer to be referred to as enormous rather than fat nowadays? I wasn't aware of this, but will make the effort to use enormous in future when commenting on an enormous persons weight even though this sounds more offensive than the original term...

The internet says she is on legal aid. The lawyers care as much about her as they do the poor folks who would have to live next to her if she were to be allowed to return. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/shamima-begum-case-pushes-legal-aid-into-national-spotlight/5070002.article

She has had an appeal already. The next step should be GoFundMe if she or her family cannot afford further appeals. There have been plenty of high profile rich woke idiots such as Gary Linekar speaking out (without of course being privy to the facts such as MI5 and the home office who say she is a security risk based on these facts) who can contribute to this.

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old in the UK. Maybe if she had left as a 9 year old you would have a point. This also provides a deterrent for any other would be terrorists who wish to partake in terrorist atrocities abroad, especially so if they have any kind of dual nationality or a pathway to alternate nationality on their parents side. This in turn should encourage better parenting from 1st generation migrants into the UK by encouraging them to teach their kids that if they join a terrorist death cult there is a good chance they will lose their right to be in the UK should they be captured whilst part of this death cult.

I'm struggling to understand - since she is no longer a UK citizen - how it is she is still qualifying for UK legal aid. We would not do this for other citizens of ISIS or Bangladesh or any other part of the world, so I am baffled after the first appeal why this responsibility still falls on the UK taxpayer.

Just to be clear, you think minors should (for example) be able to have their penis removed prior to being 18 and you think it's far right hatred that is the reason that kids cannot get their body parts sliced off? I presume that being on the side of allowing minors to have such drastic, irreversible, life changing surgery you believe you are one of the good guys?!

Well you simply cannot get more "far right" than this. Has anyone reported them to the FBI yet?

And those youngsters already smoking are "technically" denied a healthier alternative. Fortunately bad and nonsensical laws are (rightly) ignored as can be seen when out and about as there are very few youngsters actually smoking real cigarettes and are choosing the much healthier option of vaping instead.

Yes.

It was headline news in every single media outlet for a week. There will be countless women who thought that this was just a "nice to be nice" bit of legislation that have now realised that it is the equivalent of allowing foxes to identify as chickens so they can get access to the hen house. I can provide a link to what common sense means if that is any help to you?

Anyone who cannot tell the difference between a double rapist and a woman up to the point that a double rapist was housed in a women's prison should be absolutely nowhere near a place that can make legislation. She has woken up a lot of previously unaware women to the fact their rights and single sex spaces are under threat though, so that could be considered an unintended success of her time in office I guess.

Can you prove Santa Claus does not exist? If you cannot then logically you have to admit that Santa Claus exists, whether you want to or not.

Again, lots of words, but it seems you agree with me that if the strict requirements for a fully-auto is not against 2nd amendment, then neither will strict requirements for semi-auto. You still have the right to bear arms (as per the constitution), and even without semi-automatic arms, they will be arms that can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly than a musket which was what arms referred to when this amendment was written. Or perhaps you are advocating that the 2nd amendment be amended to better reflect the arms in use today and specify which guns need the strictest checks and which ones don't?

You've used a lot of words there to avoid answering the question I posed which was: "If the requirements to get an automatic rifle are not in breach of second amendment rights, why can the exact same rules for fully automatics (strict requirements, cost etc) not be applied to semi-automatics as well? " Since the ability to purchase a firearm is oft cited by the gun lobby as a second amendment right, and the fact that fully automatic weapons are subject to additional stricter checks (which I am sure is not specified in a constitution written before such weapons were invented), how would making the same checks for semi-auto the same as for full auto be against any second amendment rights? If it is not against 2nd amendment, and you can still purchase some kind of gun to kill other humans and animals what would be the problem with that? Admittedly it would be more difficult to carry out a massacre due to the need to do something each time in between shots other than squeezing the trigger, but that would only affect the lunatics who want to carry out mass shootings. So unless your requirement was to kill lots of defenceless kids in a short amount of time a non automatic gun would be sufficient, would it not?

Of course that is not possible. Just in the same way it is not possible to prove that fairies, unicorns, Santa and goblins do not exist. Of course if you can prove that god does exist then you will turn me into a believer. If you have a direct line to this omnipotent being then please tell this almighty wizard to come down and show himself. If this entity cares about whether or not puny humans believe in him then I am sure he will be along anytime now to demonstrate this.

There are literally hundreds of Gods made up by man. Which one should I dedicate my life to? Allah? Odin? Thor? Zeus? Buddha? Santa Claus? Satan (who only gets a bad rep due to propaganda)? Or one of the hundreds of other ones? And what if you get it wrong? Thank god I am an atheist is all I can say on this matter as I have better things to do with my time such as searching for the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

If the requirements to get an automatic rifle are not in breach of second amendment rights, why can the exact same rules for fully automatics (strict requirements, cost etc) not be applied to semi-automatics as well?