Morrissey embroiled in 'racism' row

dave_rhino

Closed Account
After all the English love a good curry (which we actually invented) after a few beers.

We invented the name "Curry" but the food itself is definately Indian. (Except for Chicken Tikka Masala, which was created in the UK)

Morrissey is spot on. To accuse him of being racist is a ridiculous idea. The problem this world faces now is that if a white man says anything that might involve any other race, creed, colour or nation then he is deemed a racist rather than an individual voicing an opinion. The racism and PC cards have been played too much and it's terrible that a man can't make a statement about the country he once loved without being persecuted globaly.
He has also been accused of racism for waving the Union Jack flag. This to me defies belief that a symbol of our united countries of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales can be deemed a racist gesture - what ever happened to national pride, pride in our identity ? Americans proudly wave there flag on any occasion possible and rightly so - they are proud of their nation and all it stands for. This ridiculous country has even tried to ban us from having the St George cross flag on churches !! With reactionary movements like that is there any wonder this country is going to rack and ruin and people with a voice and opinion like Morrissey speak out ? Morrissey, i salute you.

A great post, seeing as it's only the second one you've made. Welcome to the board :hatsoff:

The "race card" does get flashed about far too much these days. :2 cents:
 
We invented the name "Curry" but the food itself is definately Indian. (Except for Chicken Tikka Masala, which was created in the UK)

Actually it was invented by the British troops in India. As they couldn't keep the meat fresh in the heat. They need a way to cover the taste of it starting to spoil. So the added herbs and spices and other things that became curry.
 
(1) I know all about communism/capitalism I've studied them. If you study them more closely you'll see that (a) there are about 50 ways to run a country, not 2 ways. And all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Capitalism and communism are two of the worst ways, imo. Socialism is closer to the middle, but I have much better ideas than socialism. And (b) it is commonly discussed by experts that fascism/naziism and communism are much closer and more similar than is imaginable. "Animal Farm" by George Orwell demonstrates this. Extreme left becomes extreme right if you try to force it on people. Extreme right is the most oppressive government there is, unless you're the prototype ideal.

(3) You'd be surprised how many people don't trust the government whatsoever.

(4) No-one has to do anything, blindly or otherwise. That's what freedom of choice is. In America I can have any religion, any language and any views that I want. I can say "we need a revolution". This is not illegal and not even that uncommon. If you are a fan of Middle Eastern intolerance, you should champion those countries, not America, because America is - supposedly - the land of liberalism, individuality, freedom of religion, freedom of politics, freedom of expression, and freedom from oppression, like the "do as we do or go home" kind of fascist oppression that you are championing, as usual.

(6) It's not for you to decide whether the people can govern themselves rather than the rich elites govern the rest. It is for the people to decide. You cannot deny them that power, and someday, in every nation, the people will govern themselves. It is the inevitable course of humanity. There are too many of us. We will eventually band together and find a better way. I believe it. I will try to do what I can to help it happen.

1) You claim to have a diploma in politics but your experience in politics nor are your political views completely irrealistic. You live in utopias. If you had a so much better system than capitalism you would have put it in place many years ago, but fact is that such a system doesn't exist. You also had oppression under Stalin, Pol Pot and Caucescu who were all far left leaders.

3) ok

4) So you think you are entitled to disrupt and go against rules and customs in habits in the USA????? It is with that way of thinking that one can get severely punished or even get his citizenship withdrawn. You are not allowed to do whatever you want. There is a famous saying which is "freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others", so you can't do whatever you want. The revolution will never happen. Also I don't support Middle Eastern states who for the most treat their citizens like shit. You hate discipline, and no discipline is not fascism, it is just a matter of respect. I don't champion fascism, that is completely false. You are the one who thinks everyone is entitled to do what ever they want even going against the rules and the constitution, you champion anarchy.

6) It is not for you as well you who spit on the american constitution and the 2nd amendment to give lessons to people and how should be led by their country especially when you have no real notion how important is the 2nd amendment nor why it was and it is still used.

And the next time I see this kind of thing "Yeah really. Too right. Georges, like Morrisey, talks about foreigners having to adapt to and adopt and abide by this "national identity", this ideal. ", I will be forced to answer you in another way (in a not so kind way), so watch your words carefully Fox, I am not kidding. Don't even compare me to Morrissey. I have my own opinions. It is completely normal asking discipline and respect in your country unless you have no moral values and no sense of duty.
 
4) So you think you are entitled to disrupt and go against rules and customs in habits in the USA????? It is with that way of thinking that one can get severely punished or even get his citizenship withdrawn. You are not allowed to do whatever you want. There is a famous saying which is "freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others", so you can't do whatever you want. The revolution will never happen. Also I don't support Middle Eastern states who for the most treat their citizens like shit. You hate discipline, and no discipline is not fascism, it is just a matter of respect. I don't champion fascism, that is completely false. You are the one who thinks everyone is entitled to do what ever they want even going against the rules and the constitution, you champion anarchy.

6) It is not for you as well you who spit on the american constitution and the 2nd amendment to give lessons to people and how should be led by their country especially when you have no real notion how important is the 2nd amendment nor why it was and it is still used.

Your location shows as Europe.Have you lived in the US?I guess I'm asking how you make such statements and what experience or knowledge it is based on? It doesn't sound like you know really that much about it.Lose citizenship is not something that happens and what customs are we not allowed to differ from?Actually the whole basis of country is exactly the opposite at least in theory, that almost any habit or custom from anywhere in the world is welcome.And on the 2nd amendment please explain to me how exactly you think it is being used today as I personally think you are confused on what the reasons are the founders gave the right .
 

om3ga

It's good to be the king...
Joy Dean Bowman came to Britain from Jamaica six years ago with her three children, alleging that her husband threatened to kill her.
Her sons, Leven, 28, and Damian, 24, both joined the British Army. Leven saw active duty in Basra, while his brother Damian was featured in an Army recruiting campaign to persuade more people from ethnic minorities to join the forces.
Unfortunately despite her sons' service and Mrs Bowman's years of voluntary work in the UK (although she is not allowed to work in Britain because she is an asylum seeker, Mrs Bowman has been a healthcare volunteer for the last five years and is now studying to become a nurse), the Government told her that both she and her 15-year-old daughter Chena, will be deported.

Details:
Your country needs you... but not you: Soldiers' mother faces deportation

Last I heard, plans to deport Mrs Bowman and her daughter were frozen after Tyne Bridge MP David Clelland convinced the Home Office to take another look at her case. But I digress....

My point is: Morrissey is entitled to his views and he has the luxury to be concerned about this country from beyond our shores.
However as a British citizen, I have more respect for Messrs Leven and Damian Bowman - immigrants prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country - than Morrissey right now.....
 
4) So you think you are entitled to disrupt and go against rules and customs in habits in the USA????? It is with that way of thinking that one can get severely punished or even get his citizenship withdrawn. You are not allowed to do whatever you want. There is a famous saying which is "freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others", so you can't do whatever you want. The revolution will never happen. Also I don't support Middle Eastern states who for the most treat their citizens like shit. You hate discipline, and no discipline is not fascism, it is just a matter of respect. I don't champion fascism, that is completely false. You are the one who thinks everyone is entitled to do what ever they want even going against the rules and the constitution, you champion anarchy.

6) It is not for you as well you who spit on the american constitution and the 2nd amendment to give lessons to people and how should be led by their country especially when you have no real notion how important is the 2nd amendment nor why it was and it is still used.

Are you aware what an amendment means here? It means an alteration/addition/retraction of some portion of a constitution. In order to effect any such change, people have had to argue for it.

Freedom of expression is a right enshrined in the same Constitution that you're actually referring to here. Take a look at that First Amendment before you go nuts over the Second.
 
I have been 9 times in the USA each over a priod of two months. A part of my family lives there since the 50's. I can make such statements because I have talked with many attorneys at laws and people law enforcement about the American citizenship, respect for the law and order and other matters. Many of these people are friends of my family because two of my cousins are in the law enforcement. So don't start to make assumption about who know much when you have no frieds or part of your family who works in the law enforcement.
Read these two chapters from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (not sure you ever heard about it), it will help you

INA: ACT 313 - PROHIBITION UPON THE NATURALIZATION OF PERSONS OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENT OR LAW, OR WHO FAVOR TOTALITARIAN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
Sec. 313. [8 U.S.C. 1424] from http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe
(US Citizenship and Immigration Service link, don't pretend you never heard about it).
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-
(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or
(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of a ny such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or
(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his o r their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or
(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world com munism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or
(6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).
(b) The provisions of this section or of any other section of this Act shall not be construed as declaring that any of the organizations referred to in this section or in any other section of this Act do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.
(c) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the application is filed he may not be included within such classes.
(d) Any person who is within any of the classes described in subsection (a) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization may be naturalized without regard to the provisions of subsection (c) if such person establishes that such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or occurred and terminated prior to the attainment by such alien of the age of sixteen years, or that such membership or affiliation is or was by operation of law, or was for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes.
(e) 1/ A person may be naturalized under this title without regard to the prohibitions in subsections (a)(2) and (c) of this section if the person-
(1) is otherwise eligible for naturalization;
(2) is within the class described in subsection (a)(2) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization described in that subsection;
(3) does not fall within any other of the classes described in that subsection; and
(4) is determined by the Director of Central Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense 2/ when Department of Defense activities are relevant to the determination, and with the concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, 2/ to have made a contribution to the national security or to the national intelligence mission of the United States.
FOOTNOTES FOR ACT 313
INA: ACT 313 FN 1
FN 1 Subsection (e) added by section 306 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-120 , dated December 3, 1999.
INA: ACT 313 FN 2
FN 2 Section 313(e)(4) is amended by section 373 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-177, dated December 19, 2003.
 
Let's not forget the section 316
INA: ACT 316 - REQUIERMENTS AS TO RESIDENCE, GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND FAVORABLE DISPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES
Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] from
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|ACT316&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-397
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
(b) Absence from the United States of more than six months but less than one year during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship, immediately preceding the date of filing the application for naturalization, or during the period between the date of filing the application and the date of any hearing under section 336(a) , shall break the continuity of such residence, unless the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he did not in fact abandon his residence in the United States during such period.
Absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship (whether preceding or subsequent to the filing of the application for naturalization) shall break the continuity of such residence except that in the case of a person who has been physically present and residing in the United States after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence for an uninterrupted period of at least one year and who thereafter, is employed by or under contract with the Government of the United States or an American institution of research recognized as such by the Attorney General, or is employed by an American firm or corporation engaged in whole or in part in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States, or a subsidiary thereof more than 50 per centum of whose stock is owned by an American firm or corporation, or is employed by a public international organization of which the United States is a member by treaty or statute and by which the alien was not employed until after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, no period of absence from the United States shall break the continuity of residence if-
(1) prior to the beginning of such period of employment (whether such period begins before or after his departure from the United States), but prior to the expiration of one year of continuous absence from the United States, the person has established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his absence from the United States for such period is to be on behalf of such Government, or for the purpose of carrying on scientific research on behalf of such institution, or to be engaged in the dev elopment of such foreign trade and commerce or whose residence abroad is necessary to the protection of the property rights in such countries of such firm or corporation, or to be employed by a public international organization of which the United States is a member by treaty or statute and by which the alien was not employed until after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
(2) such person proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his absence from the United States for such period has been for such purpose.
The spouse and dependent unmarried sons and daughters who are members of the household of a person who qualifies for the benefits of this subsection shall also be entitled to such benefits during the period for which they were residing abroad as dependent members of the household of the person.
(c) The granting of the benefits of subsection (b) of this section shall not relieve the applicant from the requirement of physical presence within the United States for the period specified in subsection (a) of this section, except in the case of those persons who are employed by, or under contract with, the Government of the United States. In the case of a person employed by or under contract with Central Intelligence Agency, the requirement in subsection (b) of an uninterrupted period of at least one year of physical presence in the United States may be complied with by such person at any time prior to filing an application for naturalization.
(d) No finding by the Attorney General that the applicant is not deportable shall be accepted as conclusive evidence of good moral character.
(e) In determining whether the applicant has sustained the burden of establishing good moral character and the other qualifications for citizenship specified in subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall not be limited to the applicant's conduct during the five years preceding the filing of the application, but may take into consideration as a basis for such determination the applicant's conduct and acts at any time prior to that period.
(f) (1) Whenever the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration determine that an applicant otherwise eligible for naturalization has made an extraordinary contribution to the national security of the United States or to the conduct of United States intelligence activities, the applicant may be naturalized without regard to the residence and physical presence requirements of this section, or to the prohibitions of section 313 of this Act, and no residence within a particular State or district of the Service in the United States shall be required: Provided, That the applicant has continuously resided in the United States for at least one year prior to naturalization: Provided further, That the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any alien described in clauses (i) through (v) of section 208(b)(2)(A) of this Act.
(2) An applicant for naturalization under this subsection may be administered the oath of allegiance under section 337(a) by any district court of the United States, without regard to the residence of the applicant. Proceedings under this subsection shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of intelligence sources, methods and activities.
(3) The number of aliens naturalized pursuant to this subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed five. The Director of Central Intelligence shall inform the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives within a reasonable time prior to the filing of each application under the provisions of this subsection.

Fact is that two paragraphs are more agreeing with me than you or Fox or anyone else who thinks he is more knowledgeable on what goes about citizenship when it is not the case. Not to mention as well, that enumerates a lot of point I talked about in my posts before: good order, respect of the law and moral order and I can go on and on.

About the 2nd amendment, there was thread about it where people in the majority agreed that it should stay the same. Was this astonishing? not at all. People who think it should be changed know where in the minority.
I am not the one who is confused about which reasons the founding fathers gave that right but you make assumptions which are completely false. Also if there was no 2nd amendment today then honest citizens wouldn't be able to fight against scum, defend their properties and their freedom.
 
Fact is that two paragraphs are more agreeing with me than you or Fox or anyone else who thinks he is more knowledgeable on what goes about citizenship when it is not the case. Not to mention as well, that enumerates a lot of point I talked about in my posts before: good order, respect of the law and moral order and I can go on and on.

About the 2nd amendment, there was thread about it where people in the majority agreed that it should stay the same. Was this astonishing? not at all. People who think it should be changed know where in the minority.
I am not the one who is confused about which reasons the founding fathers gave that right but you make assumptions which are completely false. Also if there was no 2nd amendment today then honest citizens wouldn't be able to fight against scum, defend their properties and their freedom.

Well since I am native born none of that would apply.And on the 2nd amendment the only reason that the founders mentioned was protecting liberty from a future tyrannical govt.It was not given to protect the population from each other,their personal prpoerty, for hunting or anything like that.That may be what folks like the NRA want to bring up today but it was not part of the original intent.
 
(1) I don't claim to. I do. If you're accusing me of lying, I can add that to the long list - the longest list on this board - of personal insults you have directed at other members since 2003-04.

(4) I didn't say any of those things. And I agree. Your freedom stops where begins the freedom of others. You can do anything you want as long as it does not jeopardize the rights and freedom of others. Which is why I do not support capitalism, which severely limits the rights of those without money. I support democracy, which gives everyone equal rights. In democracy, real democracy, the only rules are those that the people democratically choose. Those rules, I will abide by. Not rules put in place by leaders to control the people that they use and exploit. But for the most part, I follow laws. Just not with my eyes closed. IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST WHAT GOVERNMENT THEY HAVE. Not you. Let them choose. There are millions of them. They can have a revolution if they wish. We should never invade another country. It is illegal. It is the same as Iraq invading the USA. The same. No different. We are monsters, Georges. I do not believe in anarchy. I believe in an organized system whereby the people make decisions through polls and a representative government enacts the decisions.

(6) I spit on nothing. How dare you refer to me in such degrading terms.

(7) You have never, ever, ever spoken to me with an ounce of respect, and have flamed me probably 50 times or more on this board. I look forward to the day when you cross the line and finally use a racial slur or a personal insult that is too offensive, and are warned about your disrespectful behaviour. On the other hand, I also look forward to the day when you let go of your hatred of people who are not like you, who have different ideas, and accept everyone, and learn the civilized quality of tolerance. I don't hate you - not even slightly - but you clearly despise me. Your words drip with it. Just as you despised Nightfly, Brino, pinkos, hippie pinko leftist etc etc to quote you.

(8) You agreed a long time ago with me not to respond to each other's posts. The reason I initially suggested this is that you are incapable of writing posts to me without - eventually - getting personal. We agreed at the time it was for the best, I suggest we do it again, and ignore each others' words completely. What do you think. Because this is VERY annoying.

1) I didn't insult people, I replied strongly when it was needed, so quit lieing. The only people I insulted were Kontkin, Mr Green Genes, Lisa (who was in fact a man and not a woman as she claimed to be) and c~3/4. Those people were stupid fucks. All the regulars know me here better than you, so stop making the wrong assumptions as always.

4) Money is the base of capitalism. You sell your CDs so you make money, logic ain't it? You like that money because money has no taste. What would you do without, you would starve. Real democracy has never existed even at the time of the Romans, it was always the law of the fittest. Of course, it isn't the best balance but someone who has no knwoledge of geostrategy, economics, justice and military power can't be a president. Many things are illegal, for example Sarkozy doubled his salary when a lot of people are very low paid. Chirac invented fake employees at the time when he was mayor of Paris.

6) Seeing how much you hate the 2nd amendment and that you want law abiding citizens disarmed, I really wonder wether you are truely liking your welcoming country or not.

7) Wouldn't you have been disruptive, not insane and irrealistic perhaps my attitude would be different. A lot of your replies are very often a source of aggriviation and irrespectful to many people. I am tolerant with people who treat people with respect no matter what are their religion or race or convictions. But when people are thinking they are all alowed, obnoxisouly loudmouthed and unthankful to a country that has welcomed them or to dead men who saved their country, it leads me in a berserk rage. I will never insult people because I am not a kid, I have better things to do than playing chilidish games or fighting battles with immature people. I never dispised Nightfly, so stop lieing behind my back. Nightfly despite, I disagreed with him a lot, was one of the people whom I spoke the most on msn. Members Ricochet and Doc Death can attest of this.
Brino was just an immature bush basher and a commie. I don't like leftism in general but that is my problem, you can't like everything, neither can I.

8) I don't like to get personal but many of your posts are very angrying. I will not react to your posts, however if you are more down to earth and more realistic it would help you a lot.
 
Top