[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
So why should we fund the police and not healthcare in your view? If neither are in the constitution? [/quote]
Most police are funded at the state level and authorized to do so in each state’s constitution. This right is preserved unto the States in the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The federal level of police generally fall under the Section 8 of the Constitution and the enabling clause therein.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
I have never encountered any anti black sentiment at all in most countries, lots of anti middle east stuff though.
[/quote]
And yet the highest rate of victims of hate crimes (per capita and sometimes even raw figures) in any country in Europe are Jews.
Note, this is also true in the USA. In religious-based attacks, 63.2 percent (of 1480) were victims of an offenderâ??s anti-Jewish bias. Rather impressive rate, given we are somewhere in the 2% range of the population.
This actually brings me to bit of a thread hijack:
Looking at the numbers, with blacks making up 12% of the population and 71% of 3165 racial crimes in the USA, Jews are something like 300% more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a black in the USA. (Someone more motivated than me can do the exact math.)
And somehow we get along, prosper, and don’t complain about what a rough deal we have here.
Perhaps we should riot or something. But, then again, I’ll just go back to work.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just a hunch (and I have excellent hunches if I do say so myself) but I’d bet a boatload of French wine, German beer and British chips that a creationist lawmaker would be one of your very best allies when it comes to protecting individual liberty as compared to the alternatives.
[/quote]
Likely, yes, provided that he isn’t a Rick Santorum type.
I meant only what you would undoubtedly mean if you said that you weren’t a big fan of atheist lawmakers. It doesn’t mean that they are useless or wrong about everything; it’s just, you’d rather the same person not be an atheist. Or so I suspect.[/quote]
The opposite of “creationist” is not “atheist”, you know.
Dan Sullivan, US Senator from Alaska, like most Catholics, is not a creationist, but I’d wager he would be a better ally than, say, Senator Harry Reid (a creationist, like most Mormons) in protecting individual liberty.[/quote]
No. Catholics might typically be creationists, just not young earth creationists.
I can’t imagine any ordinary Catholic changing, “In the beginning God,” to “In the beginning no God.”[/quote]
Creationists typically deny the validity of the theory of evolution through natural selection, and take everything in the first nine chapters of Genesis as literal history, as I know you yourself do.
Most Catholics do not. Pope Francis certainly does not:
[i]"When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. And thus creation went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, in fact because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities.
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it. The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”[/i]
Clearly, one’s acceptance of the theory of evolution does not negate his belief in God. You know this. Or at least you should by now.
A Catholic may believe that the cosmos came into being thirteen point eight billion years ago, and that life evolved on this planet over the last 700 million years, but asserting that God was the one who set it all in motion does not make him a “creationist”, any more than wearing Evolv rock climbing shoes makes you an “evolutionist”.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Can I ask how many black members of parliament there are in your country now? Historically?[/quote]
There have been 16 black (as in, of African heritage) members of Parliament, from Guyana, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and Ghana.
There have additionally been 25 members of the House of Lords of African ancestry.
They are, as you might imagine, vastly outnumbered by the number of MPs and Lords of Indian, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan ancestry.
By contrast, there have been one hundred thirty-two black members of the House of Representatives since 1870 until today, but only nine black US senators. Including our current president.
Considering that the United Kingdom is 81.9% white (compared to 62.6% in the United States), I’d say the British don’t do too poorly by comparison.
Do you think a black man will soon be Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or head of the military of ANY Western European country?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
I have never encountered any anti black sentiment at all in most countries, lots of anti middle east stuff though.
[/quote]
And yet the highest rate of victims of hate crimes (per capita and sometimes even raw figures) in any country in Europe are Jews.
Note, this is also true in the USA. In religious-based attacks, 63.2 percent (of 1480) were victims of an offenderâ??s anti-Jewish bias. Rather impressive rate, given we are somewhere in the 2% range of the population.
This actually brings me to bit of a thread hijack:
Looking at the numbers, with blacks making up 12% of the population and 71% of 3165 racial crimes in the USA, Jews are something like 300% more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a black in the USA. (Someone more motivated than me can do the exact math.)
And somehow we get along, prosper, and don’t complain about what a rough deal we have here.
Perhaps we should riot or something. But, then again, I’ll just go back to work.[/quote]
No one gives a fuck about jews here. In fact most of our racists in the BNP, EDL etc wave Israeli flags to piss off muslims. Seriously jews are not going through shit here. We have a huge population of ortodox jews where I live and they get along fine with everyone here.
On the other hand when the EDL marched two years ago lots of paki’s got
hit and their homes were vandalised.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Would what you get for that tax in your eyes make it worth paying for the services?
Free dental up to 18 for your children
Free healthcare
Free education
Free public transport when 60+
Free housing if needed
Living benefits if made redundant
Waste disposal and heating instillation
[/quote]
Yeah baby, it’s all FREE!
LOL
Including:
Free government intervention!
Free American subsidies for defense!
Free pussy!
Free lunch!
It’s all FREE!
Just get onboard and follow the European model!
FREE!
FREE!
FREE!
Doesn’t cost a fucking dime![/quote]
Jesus you know what I meant by"free". Also it seems a damn site cheaper than 4k per person per year lol.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Can I ask how many black members of parliament there are in your country now? Historically?[/quote]
There have been 16 black (as in, of African heritage) members of Parliament, from Guyana, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and Ghana.
There have additionally been 25 members of the House of Lords of African ancestry.
They are, as you might imagine, vastly outnumbered by the number of MPs and Lords of Indian, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan ancestry.
By contrast, there have been one hundred thirty-two black members of the House of Representatives since 1870 until today, but only nine black US senators. Including our current president.
Considering that the United Kingdom is 81.9% white (compared to 62.6% in the United States), I’d say the British don’t do too poorly by comparison.
Do you think a black man will soon be Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or head of the military of ANY Western European country?
[/quote]
Add to that when we abolished slavery, that we didn’t have segregation, that in black areas almost all council seats are made up of black people, as are mayors etc.
Also we had a woman PM, that does not mean Americans are more sexist, this is juvenile.
Don’t congress have the power to regulate commerce? the federal government does not have to have any part in healthcare. As usmccds423 said it could and should be done, if it ever is done, at state level.
