« Since We Won't Drill Our Oil, Cuba Will | Main | Joy Behar Reveals: Obama Isn't Racist »

If you're wondering what they've got planned for us at a more general level, take a look at this--

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/24/nroads124.xml

Strip away the hyperbole and you've got an attempt to return us to the past. No modern transport. Everyone has to walk to a local shop (so no supermarkets and easy shopping). This is the nation as gated community.

This is an incredible time to be living through, watching my own society throw away everything it has gained through the hard work of my ancestors. People talk about how everyone in the past were evil imperialist slavers. But my ancestors, like those of most people, were working in field and factory, gradually building the modern world, and fighting in wars to create and preserve its freedom. If they're upstairs on a cloud watching, I'd imagine they're all wondering why the heck they bothered.

Since the left believe that partial birth abortion is okay, that terminating the life of brain damaged people is okay, and that human cloning is okay, there is nothing to stop them from:

1. Creating a cloned embryo.

2. Incubating it in the womb of a surrogate mother.

3. Inflicting brain damage on the fetus prior to live birth.

4. Keeping the child on life support until its organs are ready for harvest.

5. Harvesting the organs.

This is what the Culture of Death that is the left brings us to.

For the first time I'm beginning to doubt my stance against the Islamic takeover of Britain.

My God, human-animal hybrids?
Aren't there supposed to be ethics codes in place to keep such abominations from being created?

One man's ethic is another man's abomination.

I read somewhere recently that British culture is like a forest that took a thousand years to grow but a generation to cut down.

They built an empire, spread their values to nearly every continent, civilized the savages abroad and now this at home.

What cultural currency will this generation of Anglo Saxons inherit?

And, more depravity out of San Francisco.

This is the same Gay group that crashes Mass at churches in the city.......

Hunky Jesus competition

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/24/1206206986293.html

Apparently, "The Island" was non-fiction and referred to England.

But....but...Britain ranks at the top of a new survey for best country. And the US ranks # 21. The main reason is because we are allowed to own guns. We ranked below the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, the Irish Republic, and 11 others.

However, if our guns are taken away, we'd move right back up to the top.

As the study says, "The Jane’s system differed from government assessments of country risk because it was based entirely on objective analysis, “with no politicisation of the intelligence”

LOL

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3613926.ece

Shopping list for PabloD:
1) More canned food.
2) More ammo.
I'm not having some half-human, half-baboon creature from the UK chew off my face...

"I'm not having some half-human, half-baboon creature from the UK chew off my face...

Posted by: PabloD at March 24, 2008 8:41 PM"

Who knew "28 Days Later" would be so prescient? At this rate, we won't go to a horror movie to get scared, all we'd have to do is look outside.

"They built an empire, spread their values to nearly every continent, civilized the savages abroad and now this at home."

And this was a good thing? Uhh, the British spread their "values" through brutal genocidal violence,racsit dogma, and christian values.

Cicilized the savages? Unfortunately no one ever civilized the British!

As someone with a B.A. in History, I'm not denying that the British did a lot of REALLY regrettable things in some of their overseas endeavors. However, they also did quite a bit of good. They brought more modern technology and medicines to the areas, helped quell some of the inter- tribal wars in areas like Africa, and got rid of some native practices that were, indeed, savage by any sane person's definition of the word, such as human sacrifice, cannibalism, bestiality, and many others.
Take, for instance, their handling of India. I won't deny that they definitely mistreated the Indian people in some ways, but they also helped rid India of some truly evil practices, such as suttee (It's long been a tradition in India to burn a dead man on a funeral pyre; the practice of suttee was an addition to that in which, if a married man died, his widow would be burned alive with him on his pyre). When the British, under the leadership of Sir Charles Napier, took control of India, one of his first actions was to ban this barbaric practice. Some people protested, saying suttee was an old custom of theirs. Sir Napier responded, "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
It may not have been very tolerant or P.C. of him to do or say that, but he definitely did the right thing by bringing that horrible practice to an end.
The British also abolished slavery about 60 years or so before America did, through the work of brave people like William Wilberforce.
The history of England is much like the history of any other nation: It had its good points, and its bad points.

Any "good" the British may or may not have done in the countries it invaded were purely coincidental and served only as a side effect to the brutality and violence they brought everywhere.

If the abolition of "suttee" is the best you can come up with, I'd say you've proven my point.

The British have done more good than harm. I know liberals don't really care about women's rights anymore except in the cases of abortion and preferential hiring, but the abolition of "suttee" is a pretty big item in my book.

Now, the British might want to do something about the polygamy and "honor killings" going on in their own country today.

But anyway, I don't know if anon is serious or not because it's become impossible to tell the difference between a joke and moonbats' actual beliefs.

If the abolition of "suttee" is the best you can come up with, I'd say you've proven my point.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2008 6:59 AM

He mentioned many other things, such as improving medicine, abolishing slavery in some places, ending tribal strife. Also, they improved education and farming techniques in many countries. You are typical of the socialist liberal... you don't get facts from solid sorces, you just state "how it is in your own mind" and refuse to take in the facts or evidence! What a moron.

Adam, I read an article in the late 80's when I was researching, and it was about the re-emergence of "Bride Burning" in India. It seems the British had put an end to the practice, but with them gone, it had remerged. If a man married and the wife's family failed to pay the agreed dowery or paid a less than satisfactory dowry, the bride would be burned alive, usually where her family could see! The same time I read that article, I read in another medical journal, I can't remember which one, about female casteration among Islamic parents. Usually the father would have it done when a female child is between 5-7 and under less than sterile conditions. I ended up giving one of my speeches on that one. If I did a speech on that one in todays University environment, I would be labled racist and guilty of religious bias!

I was in the British Museam a few years ago, looking at some amazing hieroglyphs from Egypt. I'd been chatting briefly with a British gentleman also admiring the carvings, and I said, "I guess it's a good thing they've got these here, to take care of them, keep them protected." He looked at me like I was clinincally insane, said "We stole all these treasures. We need to give them back." I said, "To who? Aminhotep's descendents? They've all been killed, but the current residents." He walked off in a huff.

Apparently, "The Island" was non-fiction and referred to England.

Posted by: mega at March 24, 2008 4:40 PM

mega, I bet Ian would love to be able to do the "Survivor Thing" and Vote a few people off "The Island", starting with Parliment. It is simply incredible.

Who would have ever thought that the same country that gave us Churchhill, Admiral Nelson, Beckett and so many incredible leaders in history, would humble themselves to any enemy! Very sad.

Yet again science fiction becomes reality. Many years ago (try back in the 1970s) I read a novel by a British author:

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/john-boyd/organ-bank-farm.htm



Yep....

Peet

OK... I'll give in and dish out a litle Troll-Chow...
Anonymous said: "Any 'good' the British may or may not have done in the countries it invaded were purely coincidental and served only as a side effect to the brutality and violence they brought everywhere."
Questions: Do you believe in moral relativism? Your posting implies that you believe in a standard against which actions may be measured. What is this standard, and why is it the appropriate measure?

of course morality is relative.

If morality weren't relative none of you would be able to praise England for raping an pillaging every country it ever forcefully invaded. Clearly you believe in moral relativism when you dismiss British imperalism and genocide as a some sort of neccessary evil in order to advance the world.

Of course you are moral relativists. You just don't realize it.

Anon: (1) Did I "dismiss British imperialism"? Please show me where in my posting I did this. (2) If morality is relative, then quit using terms like good and evil. By your logic, genocide, rape and torture are "good" or "evil" solely based on one's perspective, and there's no way to arbitrate between differing opinions.

Other posters: I know, I'm just feeding the troll... but seriously, how long can you simultaneously claim to be a moral relativist and condemn in universal / absolute terms everything with which you disagree?

There are some very strange and worrying concepts in this proposed legislation.
A free vote over certain clauses is not enough, Brown should allow a free vote on the third reading too!