Sorry, but you missed the point imo. Confederates were NOT real Americans, they were real traitors to America who renounced their citizenship and fought to destroy the Union....largely to protect their rights to own people.

I'm not for whitewashing history, but I do think all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go...because I'm a patriot and would never celebrate our enemies.
Funny enough, Robert E Lee agreed there should be no monuments, he knew they breed hatred on both sides.

As an American, it is pretty easy to say they were wrong, and I'm from Houston and I'm actually related to Lee through two separate lines. That changes nothing. Treason is wrong, period.

Perhaps not directly, but you certainly implied it by saying they would arrest you for just not talking.(Edit: I took that as an endorsement)

Again, you simply don't understand rights if you say it's ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior to actually exercise them, which is precisely what she did.

1 1/2 years on duty is not inexperienced or rookie IMO.
EDIT: Nor is being inexperienced or a rookie any excuse for violating civil rights....it's sad that I think that needs to be stated explicitly.

Exercising your legal right to not say a word, because saying any word has PROVEN REPEATEDLY to be enough to cause exactly the kind of trouble you say she's inviting by being silent, is absolutely NOT instigation. It is being patriotic and standing up for your hard won rights. My forefathers actually fought and died to secure those rights, it is my duty to defend them by using them, as is the case with every American citizen. Period. (I am inflexible in this line of thought, as it conforms to everything I was taught to believe about citizenship, patriotism, and respect)

Before they manhandle her, she tells them she's a lawyer and has no duty to speak....enough? If not, why?


You said "I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you...", I explained why you are wrong in that assessment (as did others by pointing you to a video that explains it in detail and much better than I can). There's no question, it's not an opinion, it's historical, verifiable fact. Talking to police can get you in more trouble than remaining silent, but I do agree it's prudent to explain to powertripping ignorant cops what's happening....with a pre-printed card you let them read through your closed window that simply says "Any questioning must be in the presence of my lawyer, and I won't respond, standing on my constitutional right to refuse any self incrimination." or something close to that. I'm usually willing to simply and flatly say " I can't talk to you without my attorney" and they go away, but that's because I'm a pussy.

Stripping context is a stupid semantics game and your better than that. If I say "declaring it's ok to kill children" is an abhorrent thing to say and I condemn it unequivocally, you aren't being honest if you observe I uttered the words "...it's ok to kill children...".

I stated the context being an act of war. If you are at war, and the enemy has managed to dig up a battle group with dual American citizenship, does every bomber sortie over them have to hold back until police can come in and arrest the group so they can stand trial first?

Your just being deliberately obtuse. Simply state you disagree on it qualifying as war like situation, then you and I otherwise agree on the whole thing.

Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

History is a bitch.




13th Amendment:
Abolish Slavery
100 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

14th Amendment:
Give Citizenship to Freed Slaves
94 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

15th Amendment:
Right to vote for All
100 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

History is a bitch.


The Democrats have been and will always be the true racists in America.


13th Amendment:
Abolish Slavery
100 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

14th Amendment:
Give Citizenship to Freed Slaves
94 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

15th Amendment:
Right to vote for All
100 % Republican support
0% Democrat Support

I hadn't heard of Ellen Burbidge previously, good find

As for Hanson... I'd have been quite happy for her to have used her British citizenship to move to England (she stayed because England is "overrun by immigrants").

She forgot to mention you don't tip here. Ever. If you ever want to have some fun at a restaurant, try leaving a tip on the table and then wait in the parking lot for the staff to come sprinting out to return your money.

Other things to watching out for--blowing your nose loudly. You shouldn't blow your nose at all, really, if you're trying to be Mr./Miss Manners but if you absolutely must do it, you should blow as quietly as possible. I have no idea why this is a thing, but they actually prefer you to sniffle incessantly as you try to keep the mucus from dripping out of your nose to using a goddamned tissue--despite the fact that you will be handed packs of tissues at nearly every train station by people trying to advertise their services/products.

Also, at the end of the day, pretty much none of these rules apply to foreigners visiting Japan for tourism purposes. Tourism is way up here these days and Japanese people--especially in the Tokyo area--kinda expect tourists to be clueless about everything. The stuff she's mentioning really only applies if you're thinking of a longer-term stay where you might make some connections and actually have to give a fuck what other people here think because you're seeing the same faces every day.

Then again, I break almost all of these rules. I've been here long enough to see Japanese people break these rules and understand the times when it is acceptable. Or when I can get away with it due to "gaijin privilege." Gaijin privilege = not being expected to conform to Japanese societal rules since I'm not Japanese--and would never be considered Japanese even if I were to get Japanese citizenship.

Well, they WERE... for about 30-40 feet when 'Bama dropped the hammer. It IS a split window 'Vette after all. Driving it fast is part of the Constitution. 35th Amendment if I remember correctly. Right after the one giving Citizenship to Predator Drones.

I'm pretty liberal minded but things have been going too far in this country recently. Our social benefits and tolerance of other cultures are being abused. Perhaps muslim women should consider respecting the traditions and customs of the country they moved to instead of expecting everyone else to acquiesce to their demands. Our citizenship ceremonies might seem pointless to them but they matter to us a great deal.

Have a little perspective, would muslim culture be tolerant of non-compliance? No, you would be put to death for it. Meanwhile in Canada you can freely debate, engage and have a wide variety of cultural freedoms. All Canadians were asking is to move a piece of cloth for 30 seconds during a very important tradition of ours, one where you join our country and become a citizen of our country.

Stephen Harper was wrong to politicize this issue but muslim women who won't even offer the country they're moving to a modicum of respect and understanding are wrong too. If people are going to become so abrasive over such a non-issue in a country that already bends over backwards for other cultures, where will they be on issues that actually matter?

The whole argument was stupid, because the oath is ceremonial. It doesn't mean anything. The amount of paper work that someone has to go through to get citizenship is astounding. They have to be indentified numerous times. Yes, they even have to show their face to match photo ID, but it's done in a special room with other women officials who can confirm the identity. The actual oath they take happens in private most of the time.

The standing in a room with everyone else is just for effect and has no practical sway on the process itself.

The two women who were trying to do it had already shown their faces and gone through the process. You could be wearing a Polkaroo costume at the oath ceremony, and it will still have the same effect.

I personally don't agree with it, but having actual religious freedom means you can't tell anyone what they can or can not wear.

The whole thing was stupid.

And I get that the women mostly want to wear it (questions of cultural pressure and/or indoctrination of children aside).

But I fundamentally disagree that anyone should get special treatment because of your religion. The law should be blind to religion.

If a christian, a jew or an atheist can wear a niqab, then a muslim woman should be able to too. If they can't, then they shouldn't get special treatment.

Is there a requirement to be able to facially identify someone at a citizenship ceremony? If not, no problem. If so, would the muslim woman agree to having another woman identify her? If so, again, no problem.

But she shouldn't expect people to change the law for her.

I get that niqabs are mostly just an implementation of aeons of patriarchy but they're still heavily entrenched in their culture. It's not just that they want to wear a niqab like some costume for some celebratory religious purpose during their citizenship ceremony, like they're putting on a motorcycle helmet just for the shit of it, but they wear a niqab _everywhere_ they go. They keep their bodies covered everywhere they go in public, for all of their lives, forever. Their niqab _is_ who they are. Their niqab _is_ a fundamental part of the citizenship they are declaring.

And as much as we might rail against it as being dehumanizing of a person to basically have their identity stripped in public, it's actually what the women want. And it's actually not up to us to make that decision for that culture. (I think in time things might change, especially if that culture is allowed to live side-by-side with ours.)

I think if it was some new-age religion, like someone is claiming to be 'jedi' and saying they're not allowed to show their face anywhere in public, well, if they actually lived that reality maybe they'd be allowed but I doubt it. But here we're talking about a fellow civilization with an equally storied history that has existed for many millennia alongside ours. And that can't just be thrown away because we think it should be.

Regarding the niqab, the rule should be pretty simple:

are you allowed take the citizenship oath while your face is covered (i.e. with a mask or a motorcycle helmet)?

If so, then there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed wear a niqab.

If not, then I don't give a shit what your imaginary friend tells you to wear; if you want to be a citizen of a country you must abide by its laws.

I really mean that. I have no problem with her wearing a niqab, provided it's not some special exemption for religious reasons.

Its not just about money. Integrating Muslim refugees (well mostly migrants) has proved to be difficult bordering on impossible in Europe. Ghettos, antisemitism, sectarian violence, attempts to impose islamic law on communities etc.

Nonetheless if a refugee asks for asylum in any EU country he will be given asylum in that country. Migrants are different, but since we do not have much of a mechanism for sending them back where they came from... not so very different.

Now some of these migrants and refugees that want to live in Germany and Sweden are supposed to be distributed by "quotas" among the other EU countries, how is that supposed to work in practice?

Dont get me wrong, we have hundreds of thousands of recently (within say 20 years) migrated foreigners in our country, but none of them are bitching about what I eat and drink, how often I pray or what my wife wears to the beach. So no big deal.

As long as these people get asylum and then get evaluated before getting citizenship and there is a limited number of citizenships available over a given period of time everything might yet work out fine.

It will not work out fine just by inertia and political correctness..

I would rather have one crazy polish fascist than a thousand people claiming to be syrian refugees come to my doorstep. I could deal with maybe five at most.