19 dead (so far) tonight in Manchester. 12 dead from terrorism in Sydney Australia in the last 30 years.
I wonder what Sydney does differently. Hmmm. What could it be?
19 dead (so far) tonight in Manchester. 12 dead from terrorism in Sydney Australia in the last 30 years.
I wonder what Sydney does differently. Hmmm. What could it be?
Hot Tub Johnny wrote:
19 dead (so far) tonight in Manchester. 12 dead from terrorism in Sydney Australia in the last 30 years.
I wonder what Sydney does differently. Hmmm. What could it be?
Didn't know Clover Moore supported mandatory detention.
Dumb answer wrote:
Hot Tub Johnny wrote:19 dead (so far) tonight in Manchester. 12 dead from terrorism in Sydney Australia in the last 30 years.
I wonder what Sydney does differently. Hmmm. What could it be?
Didn't know Clover Moore supported mandatory detention.
I haven't seen evidence it was her idea. I also haven't seen evidence that she doesn't support it. I mean, she goes along with it...no?
daily mail wrote:
Political Atheist wrote:How in the heck was that person elected mayor in London?
This is how. Obviously, it was all those Amelias that voted for him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4469826/Muhammed-Amelia-popular-baby-names-London.html
Leaving aside the lazy and pathetic implication of your post, I can tell you as someone who lives in London that babies don't have a vote in the mayoral election.
He was elected because he's relatively likeable and seems pretty competent, and London's electorate generally tends to the centre left. Two terms of Boris Johnson were an anomaly based on his media profile and antipathy to Ken Livingstone.
No idea why I wrote this when you're just being an idiot though.
why not wrote:
daily mail wrote:This is how. Obviously, it was all those Amelias that voted for him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4469826/Muhammed-Amelia-popular-baby-names-London.htmlLeaving aside the lazy and pathetic implication of your post, I can tell you as someone who lives in London that babies don't have a vote in the mayoral election.
He was elected because he's relatively likeable and seems pretty competent, and London's electorate generally tends to the centre left. Two terms of Boris Johnson were an anomaly based on his media profile and antipathy to Ken Livingstone.
No idea why I wrote this when you're just being an idiot though.
You know that the other guy wasn't implying that the babies named Muhammed elected the mayor... but rather the adults who might be inclined to name a baby "Muhammed". Anyways. Thoughtful response by you.
Mayor Khan wants to make sure that the family of the suicide bomber doesn't feel too bad. They shouldn't feel guilt about the dead and maimed bodies, who are likely mostly young white women anyway. "These things happen." and all that rot. "Move along...nothing to see here!"
Alpenrunner wrote:
Mayor Khan wants to make sure that the family of the suicide bomber doesn't feel too bad. They shouldn't feel guilt about the dead and maimed bodies, who are likely mostly young white women anyway. "These things happen." and all that rot. "Move along...nothing to see here!"
You people are so STUPID. Khan is way smarter than you idiots.
Hot Tub Johnny wrote:
You know that the other guy wasn't implying that the babies named Muhammed elected the mayor... but rather the adults who might be inclined to name a baby "Muhammed". Anyways. Thoughtful response by you.
Takes about two brain cells to realise that the majority of voters don't have a baby in any given year, and about ten seconds using Google to find that Muslims aren't anywhere near the majority of Londoners.
PART AND PARCEL means essential portion or element, integral part, a vital part of a larger entity. . In this reduplicative phrase (repetition of an element), which has been common since the 14th century, the nouns ‘part’ and ‘parcel’ are synonyms and have been since the 14th century, ‘part’ being the older word (11th century) and ‘parcel’ (14th century) the newer. The alliteration and tautology/redundancy in the expression serve to emphasize the importance of a constituent to the whole. The expression has been used as a legal term from the mid-16th century on, principally for clauses of a law and for parts of a landholding. It didn’t start to be used in its present figurative sense until about 1800. ‘Part or parcel’ and ‘part nor parcel’ have also been used since the 16th century.
Hot Tub Johnny wrote:
why not wrote:Leaving aside the lazy and pathetic implication of your post, I can tell you as someone who lives in London that babies don't have a vote in the mayoral election.
He was elected because he's relatively likeable and seems pretty competent, and London's electorate generally tends to the centre left. Two terms of Boris Johnson were an anomaly based on his media profile and antipathy to Ken Livingstone.
No idea why I wrote this when you're just being an idiot though.
You know that the other guy wasn't implying that the babies named Muhammed elected the mayor... but rather the adults who might be inclined to name a baby "Muhammed". Anyways. Thoughtful response by you.
I voted for him. My parents named me Peter.
why not wrote:
Hot Tub Johnny wrote:You know that the other guy wasn't implying that the babies named Muhammed elected the mayor... but rather the adults who might be inclined to name a baby "Muhammed". Anyways. Thoughtful response by you.
Takes about two brain cells to realise that the majority of voters don't have a baby in any given year, and about ten seconds using Google to find that Muslims aren't anywhere near the majority of Londoners.
No but there are enough Muslims to team up with liberal yahoos to win an election.
aa93v9039-3r90 wrote:
why not wrote:Takes about two brain cells to realise that the majority of voters don't have a baby in any given year, and about ten seconds using Google to find that Muslims aren't anywhere near the majority of Londoners.
No but there are enough Muslims to team up with liberal yahoos to win an election.
What does this even mean? A completely incoherent soundbite.
why not wrote:
aa93v9039-3r90 wrote:No but there are enough Muslims to team up with liberal yahoos to win an election.
What does this even mean? A completely incoherent soundbite.
I'll go slower for you. 15% Muslims + 40% liberal yahoos = democratic majority.
aa93v9039-3r90 wrote:
why not wrote:What does this even mean? A completely incoherent soundbite.
I'll go slower for you. 15% Muslims + 40% liberal yahoos = democratic majority.
"democratic majority"? Are you suggesting 45% of Londoners don't support a system of democracy in the UK?
(Obviously you're not and you're either trolling or being politically illiterate but all the same: you're an idiot.)
Terrorism is part and parcel of Islam.
why not wrote:
aa93v9039-3r90 wrote:I'll go slower for you. 15% Muslims + 40% liberal yahoos = democratic majority.
"democratic majority"? Are you suggesting 45% of Londoners don't support a system of democracy in the UK?
(Obviously you're not and you're either trolling or being politically illiterate but all the same: you're an idiot.)
No, I'm suggesting democratically, they have a majority, which you either know and are being obtuse, or don't know and have no hope of understanding, so either way forget I mentioned it.
Well 15 years of war on terror and the same old predictable canned responses of outrage and offense to attacks amazingly haven't done a thing to stop creating new terrorists. I applaud this man for stepping out of the same old trite mold and saying it like it is.
Makes me wonder. Do you think terrorists would keep committing attacks if no one gave a shit about them? Is there anybody who would blow themselves up just to be a mundane old "reality of city life" instead of the usual front page news media shock and horror glorification?
aa93v9039-3r90 wrote:
why not wrote:"democratic majority"? Are you suggesting 45% of Londoners don't support a system of democracy in the UK?
(Obviously you're not and you're either trolling or being politically illiterate but all the same: you're an idiot.)
No, I'm suggesting democratically, they have a majority, which you either know and are being obtuse, or don't know and have no hope of understanding, so either way forget I mentioned it.
It's not worth trying to discuss with muzz lovers.
rabble rabble rabble wrote:
Is there anybody who would blow themselves up just to be a mundane old "reality of city life" instead of the usual front page news media shock and horror glorification?
Right. We shouldn't talk about it at all. Just like we didn't talk about those hundreds of British girls raped by the Muslim invaders.
As many deaths from terrorism as deaths from bees in the past decade. Yes, it is terrible but when Donald Trump's campaign was partly based on banning Muslim's it says it all due to the fact that if he wants to do that he must ban bees, whites, guns and cars as they are all more deadly.