Obama challenges Congress to ‘take a vote’ on a package of progressive reforms
President Barack Obama pledged in his annual State of the Union speech to revive the sluggish US economy by creating “good, middle-class jobs”. The Democratic president promised “smarter” rather than bigger government for “the many, and not just the few” and called on Congress 'to take a vote' on a package of progressive reforms..
In his Tuesday address to Congress he also called for efforts to reduce gun violence and urged bipartisan immigration reform.
In the Republican response, Senator Marco Rubio urged Mr Obama to end his “obsession” with raising taxes.
Speaking in the House of Representatives, Mr Obama told his audience that his generation's task is “to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth - a rising, thriving middle class”.
Delivering growth and jobs will be the “North Star that guides our efforts”, he added. But he insisted that nothing he proposes will raise the deficit “by a single dime”.
Republicans are strongly opposed to increased government spending, amid a rancorous political divide over how to tame the US budget deficit.
Mr Obama proposed reforms to reduce the cost of Medicare, a federal healthcare programme for pensioners, but argued “we can't just cut our way to prosperity”. In his speech, Mr Obama also called for federal investment in infrastructure, clean energy and education.
People on either side of the gun control debate, which flared up again after December's school massacre in Connecticut, watched the president speak from the gallery.
First Lady Michelle Obama sat with the parents of a Chicago teenage band majorette shot and killed just days after performing at last month's presidential inauguration.
Mr Obama said an “overwhelming” majority of Americans supported “commonsense reform” on firearms including tighter background checks and restrictions on “weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines”.
And he urged gun-control opponents to allow a vote in Congress on his proposals.
In addition, Mr Obama announced the withdrawal of 34,000 US troops from Afghanistan by next year.
Less than a day after North Korea tested a nuclear device, Mr Obama said the US will “lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats”.
He praised bipartisan efforts to draw up an immigration reform bill, adding that if he is sent legislation, “I will sign it right away”.
Mr Obama will take to the road in the coming days to push his economic recovery proposals, stopping in the US states of North Carolina and Georgia and in his hometown of Chicago, Illinois.
Sen Rubio, a possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate, delivered his party's official riposte. He attacked Obama economic policies and said “more government isn't going to help you get ahead: it's going to hold you back”.
The Cuban-American senator from Florida, who also made his address in Spanish, referred to the pain felt by residents of the working-class neighbourhood in which he grew up.
“I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbours“, he said emphasizing that the ”tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle-class families”.
Suggested Stories
-
May 18th 2013
Venezuelan oil monopoly in joint ventures with Chevron and China Petroleum
-
May 23rd 2013
Europe’s three largest economies call for stricter rules on corporate tax avoidance
-
May 22nd 2013
US airline closes 4bn dollars deal with Brazil’s Embraer for 40 commuter aircraft
-
May 22nd 2013
Quarter of Italians edging the poverty line and most youngsters survive thanks to Mon and Dad
168 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Hate to say it but a lot make their own ammunition
There's just to many guns already in circulation and to many sick people with access to them.
Agreed , but how far do you go with security? Whats to stop the Security guard from shooting people? Trouble is it is too far down the line , very difficult to solve now.No easy solution I'm afraid. Good luck to them.
Something along the lines of an Air Marshall. Plain clothed with secondary duties within the school. Another thing I would recommend is that their identities are kept from the children and the parents. No point in putting them in there and then sticking a big sign on them, to show these nutters who they have to kill first.
Not an absolute answer, but even if it saves the life of just one five year old, it's worth it.
You can't give up your freedoms for a little security. All of this gun control nonsense is being whipped up by the Media and won't go anywhere. It will fade away when they see nothing will be passed by Congress.
They may come out with some tiny face saving measures where the pols can looks like they have done something but it will have no material effect on buying or owning guns.
It is not like these problems are being caused by sane law abiding citizens so anything they try to do will be thwarted by criminals anyway.
I have been shooting firearms since the age of 13 (9mm Luger loaned and 12 bore shotgun of my own that I worked to get) and would NEVER shoot anyone unless they were using firearms on the public and I could stop it.
But the UK has lost the right to firearms in the American way for many, many decades because of government fear of insurrection of the people after WW1 and to some extent WW2, NOT public safety. We lost ALL our pistols after Dunblane which was through police incompetence (but not quite true as a group of us took the government to courts and won back our 0.22 lr rf long barrelled free pistols – that pissed the do-gooders off. And what good did it do? Firearms are now MORE available on the black market than ever they were and of course NONE of them are known by the Police unlike ALL firearms held legally.
And you are not going to like what I say now but it is incontrovertible: IT IS PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE, the gun is just a tool. A car driver can kill far more people if that is the objective by running into a packed bus queue than anyone with a gun.
Remember the nonsense how we needed to ban ‘large’ knifes when young blacks were killing people until somebody with half-a-brain woke up and asked just how was a ban going to miss kitchen knives?
America is where it is and will quite probably do nothing about restricting self-loading rifles even those that ‘look’ like assault weapons BUT ARE NOT. Why should they, in themselves they are harmless?
Remember, when the guns are banned from private citizens, only the military, the police AND THE CRIMINALS will have them. It will turn out something akin to Prohibition, just like it has in Handsworth, Birmingham.
A MOAB is harmless in itself unless I press the button - as is an ICBM too. If the government owns one then I need one too to protect myself from them. Any idea where I can get myself a couple of dozen? Come to think of it my tinfoil hat needs a re-tune too so I'll be looking for a job lot.
Your right, look at the terrible events Norway of all places. It is people that kill, people and if they want to find a more efficient way of doing it, whether it is with legal or illegal firearms, they will do it.
This scum bag on trial for murdering the Liverpool bobbies, is as guilty has sin, no doubt whatsoever. In cases like that, the bastard should swing. May cause someone else to think twice before doing the same.
As far as I can see, the only method of 'gun control' that will be of any effect would be to make sure that anyone who wishes to possess a weapon, be licenced and effectively trained in their use/non use. It is then down to the individual as to how they protect themselves, but if they have the training to knock 10 pence pieces/dimes off a wall at 100 yards AND HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO ASCERTAIN WHEN USE IS NOT REQUIRED, then maybe things will settle down and gun crime will decrease, especially if all citizens are armed. It seems the only solution to me.
13. Still will not keep insane people or criminals from getting guns if they want them. All it does is place additional burdens on law biding citizens.
Though one would not believe it by the news reports, 12000 murders by guns in relation to 317,000,000 people is relatively a low number......not far off from druck drivers.
Everyone non-American here apparently visited the USA, how many was concerned about being gunned down? The American Revolution is the reason why we havea guns written into our Consitituion. 20 years ago guns in the USA was not even discussed, now the world worries about guns in the USA, if they are not, then why comment?
As I said in post 13, the criminals will STILL get hold of guns. There is far too much availability for that to be countered.
The law enforcement agencies are employed to deal with those burdens upon law abiding citizens. If the citizen is a part of that process( which is a responsibility ALL law abiding citizens the world over are a part ) then maybe the threat of gun violence could be reduced.
It was done to highlight how absurd I find the arguments put forward above.
It is simply following the logic he used. You think it absurd that I should own a nuclear weapon I find it absurd that you should own an assault rifle.
“Guns don't kill people people kill people” is just semantic crap. The truth is “people with guns kill people”
what is next are you going to out law stairs so people can't push others down or rocks or sticks or baseball bats?
Your logic is absurd
I think you misunderstand.
I do NOT claim that more regulation per se will reduce statistics. I merely think that a better INFORMED legally held weapon, that is more effective in its use, MAY help. (Piers Morgan I am not).
@Cpt Poppy Your comment ''20 years ago guns in the USA was not even discussed'' is an interesting point.
You can blame Tim Berners Lee in part for that I think. More worldwide discourse etc.
Following that point, I do not wish to impose my views upon you as being succinct et al, I actually like to have a nice discussion/debate about world wide affairs, and most on here I can get along with. It makes a change from reading(yet rarely participating) in the lions den of an off topic forum which I read that is a part of a forum which connects to my main hobby. www.rcgroups.com/life-the-universe-and-politics-22/
But this is your logic not mine - and following your logic I should be entitled to own a nuclear weapon.
We shouldn't ban stairs - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban sticks - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban baseball bats - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban knives - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban cars - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban assault rifles - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban RPGs - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban MBTs - that's absurd
We shouldn't ban ICBMs - that's absurd
Ho-hum where does one draw the line in the pursuit of individual freedom?
It is a liberal wet dream to take guns away from law abiding citizens
and your previous statement confirms why nothing of substance will ever change in the USA.
Raven as an America I have no compunction placing some limits on the 2nd amemdment in the USA. The stale echos of an argument is that we cannot impose a qualification on a constitutional amendment, but that's bullshit. Any American that believes that ignors the fact that:
4th guarantees a warrent to be searched, yet we know that is bullshit
5th guarantees the right to due process, yet gitmo proves that a restriction
6th guarantees a right to a speedy trial and see evidence sued to charge you. Again refer to gitmo
8th guarantees bail, yet we do hold people without bail.
Why? in the name of public safety. Yet no politician in the USA has the balls to stand up to the NRA. Yes.....we' can restrict and limit the constitution when we want to and it's time we do.
Your post #19 explains my understanding clearly.
Your post #24 shows the complications, unforeseeable at the time, of upholding amendments.
I just hope that both sides can work together, to address ALL issues currently facing your country. However, I do not see the far right being a co-operative partner in this sadly.
Having woken everyone up to the absurdity of gun laws, you are going into the realms of fantasy.
RPG? MBT? ICBM? Are you taking the piss?
The reality is this: criminals, whether the gun is legally held or not are the problem.
The real solution is to spot the nutters AND it can be done I assure you, it's just more difficult than enacting a number of laws that ONLY affect the legal gun users. Criminals DO NOT obey the law.
There were only 59,000 pistol shooters in the UK and that was why the government could push the draconian laws through, irrespective of the fact that Northern Police should NOT have issued the licence as confirmed by TWO of their own officers who visited Thomas Hamilton at separate times both felt at risk from him and their superior did nothing about it because he was a friend of Hamilton. This is fully documented in the report by Lord Cullen but even he did not follow up on the suspected paedophile case. You remember that the vast majority of the dead were small children.
We had a gun show 3 years back in Westfield Massachusetts. A doctor took his 9 year old to the show and they allowed the kid to fire a mMAC10. The gun kicked up and put three rounds through his head. There is a lot of negligence involved with gun owners as well. My first year in the Army I humped an M60..........pretty lethal piece for light ground forces. I never understood why we allow people to own military weapons.
The quandry is the extremes of both sides, never a good thing.
Firearms are perfectly safe in those that KNOW WHEN/WHERE and HOW to use them. I respect the right of the American citizen to hold and bear arms. It is a part of the very being of your country.
I shake my head at the (redneck) bigotry that do not fully understand that.
For example, they claim that the 2A is a protection against the Gvt, but do not/can not/will not explain how in modern times, they will march upon Capitol Hill and overthrow the current administration, being as they see it, ' the anti- christ' of all things American.
Someone mentioned on here that criminals can get hold of guns easily.
How many guns are in the hands of the population, perhaps 300,000,000
maybe? If I was a criminal I am sure I could get hold of 1 or 2 or maybe 20.
Has to be said the more guns in circulation the more gun crime ( elementary,no )
Less guns in circulation surely less criminal activity.
Do not know the answer, nor does the USA population
The only need for these types of weapons are the military or police armed response units. Other than this you degenerate into a Wild West scenario. Weapons in the USA seem to be glorified as a macho symbol. Most American TV shows seem to have folk poncing around pointing weapons as if they were designer jewelry. Today's news included scenes from the shoot out with the rogue ex policeman who shot several people. It looked like something from the Hatfields and McCoys.
My only experience of the USA was in L.A. airport. Every one in a uniform seemed to be carrying a side arm. I would have been scared to go out on the street if guns were that necessary.
I can remember a case in RAF Mildenhall when I was visiting some colleagues in the UK Customs. A young lady USAF policewoman came in and asked if she could put her service revolver in our safe. Why we asked ? Because she was going to the canteen and they had banned guns from there.
Seemingly there had been an argument the day before and someone had pulled out his gun and began shooting !!!!!
Enough said.
Clyde there are over 120,000 tv shows in the usa on almost 400 channels serving 318,000,000 in the USA. Now you say MOST of the shows show macho man pounching and pointing their weapons like designer jewelry. most wopuld mean 51&, do you actually believe that over 61,ooo shows are violent menacing people pouncing and pointing? CLyde, what does your constitution have to state regarding firearms?
We do not have written constitution. Being simplistic, it is basically a mish mash of common law, statutory law and parliamentary precedence. For instance, murder is a crime under common law, there is no statute. Our bill of right of the other hand was passed by parliament and is statute law. Our Gun laws are controlled by The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1999. The last act was introduced following the a mass shooting at a school called Dunblane, in Scotland. The victims were sixteen 5 year old children and their head teacher. So you see, these tragedies are not just an American problem. The shooter, who's name I no longer remember or have any intention of looking up, also killed himself.
Cap
Surely the law of averages would say that the majority of gunowners are householders, granted quite a few would perhaps take hunting holidays.
Indeed I am - to highlight the absurdity of the argument put forward by the gun lobby.
The second amendment is from the 18th century and was principally to counter “sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers” for which you now have the vast military and police forces - and at the time the individual had the same arms as any regular military person. In the 21st century you can either equate it to 21st century weaponry or you can deem it to be obsolete.
The argument about “criminals ” is specious too. A criminal is always someone else. How many people are in prison because their first crime was to lose their temper, pick up their gun and shoot someone dead? The claim that “firearms are perfectly safe in those that KNOW WHEN/WHERE and HOW to use them.” is simply not true. Look at Christopher Dorner.
I don't believe there is a single solution to gun crime in the USA simply because there are too many weapons out there and too many that would be unwilling to surrender them......but ask yourself this - are there any other first world democracies where the public are clamouring to emulate the gun laws of the USA?
let them do what they want, don't give a hoot...if the horrors and massacres don't provoke change then it is the American society that will suffer. let them put it to the vote, if they don't want change then we should respect that democracy and all that (they invented that as well , watched a film on it)
I should have prefaced my remarks by saying “adventure or police dramas” We do not have as many channels here in the UK.
The deaths by gunshot statistics are below.
USA 9146
CANADA 173
ENGLAND 41
SCOTLAND NIL
ARGENTINA 1,198
Why is Canada different
Spot the countries with strict gun laws !
Again Clyde.....if it were not for the Revolution, we would not have firearms ingrained in our constitution. Spot the reason why?
We are a free country Clyde....you are always welcome to come to the United States and lobby congress to outlaw firearms.
The right to bear arms in the USA is primarily the right to defend the independence and integrity of 'the Nation' (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence). .. with the rationale being to be called up in time of need for the local militia.
Secondarily, it can be (just) construed as the right to defend 'the home'.
It's not framed as the right to shoot one's own food.
So, if the state (State/USA) and the home is threatened by machine-guns, it is only right to allow machine-guns to defend against this;
if the state or the home is threatened by nuclear bombs in North Korean suitcases, then it is only logical that this right extends to each US citizen;
and if threatened by Anthrax spores in envelopes ........ etc, etc.
“That's not a knife ..... THAT's a knife.” (Michael J. Dundee)
When the President said “Speak softly ..... and carry a big stick” he was talking about the state, not the individual.
So, wilfully misinterpreting the Constitutional right to wage an individual modern 'war' using 'legally held' modern military weapons with incredible killing power, takes interpretative rhetoric way beyond reason and logic.
The INDIVIDUAL becomes a REAL threat to the state and its citizens.
This is not a philosophical issue of 'how large a stick' a citizen can carry,
it is one of the NEW law needed, as a Constitutional Amendment, to protect the state and its citizens from its own misfit citizens.
The Precautionary Principle applies, as the world has had enough of sending in another lorry-load of body bags for the victims and the 'lone gunman'.
We could remove the misfit citizens in anticipation of their 'mass destruction' ... but this is called Eugenics, and the USA moved away from this some 30-80 years ago,
so, a *sane* nation is restricted to the alternative ... removing from ALL private citizens - citizens that *may* become aberrant - their weapons that, in the 'wrong' hands, destroy en masse.
I was once told,
It aint guns that kill people its people that kill people,
People have been killing each other, rightly or wrongly for thousands of years,
Perhaps it is the people that needs to be educated,
Rather than the gun.
Just a thought.
.
I believe our 14th amendment is misinterpreted as well, but it's my opinion and probably 160 or even 200 million others as well.
I was not in anyway condemning what Americans do,
Just that being British, just north of London,
We don’t carry guns, and most people here would not even know how to fire one,
Yes we do have police, who do carry, but this is really special cops, and we do have some criminals that carry,
But in the main, we don’t use guns, so it is difficult sometime to understand another countries gun culture,
And this included most countries where arms are freely available.
Perhaps in time some protection can be added to the amendment.
Were you beating your chest and singing the star spangled banner while you typed that?
With this comment: “Do you think by showing gun fatalies I will change my rights and thinking?” (sic) you sound much like a Malvinista. How many fatalities would it take? Should we add a zero? Maybe two? Should we wait until your entire family is gunned down by an enraged psychopath with raging bloodlust?
.....or are your “rights and thinking” of greater value than the lives of every single citizen in your entire nation?
I'm just wondering what value you place on an American citizens rights and what price you are prepared to let other Americans to pay for your rights?
It's your country and I would in no way tell you what you should do. I just cannot understand the reasoning for the desire to own a handgun. The old adage that guns do not kill people but people kill people is only partly true. Guns are designed to KILL animals or people. That is their primary function. A gun kills at long range and there is no defence against it unless you are wearing a bullet proof vest. If you want to kill someone with a knife or blunt instrument, then you have to be at arm's length. The chosen victim still has a chance to run away - you cannot outrun a bullet.
It's a cultural thing ,American's seem to have a love affair with guns in Britain we don't
As I said, it's your country and it will be decided by your people or the NRA
You have every right to voice you opinions as we all do hear, I have no problem with that at all. As for the knive, anytime I seen the k-bar employed, it was angled up the armpit, through the clavicle or up someones thigh into the groin, never seen anyone with a chance to runaway.....ever.
As for the NRA....they are a radical right just as we have radical liberals.....the price of our freedoms are the extremes.
That's what I remember from my annual UDT course.
you will see this Charlatan very scare around March 1 when his budget starts reducing all federal departments terminating employees and private contractors.
rising the minimu wage to $9.00 is simply absurd. regardless of what type
of work everyone needs at least $20 per hour to make a decent living
USA citizens are not “content” . most of them that listen this idiot simply cannot see his weakness in leadership. stay tune.
He certainly has some very serious questions to answer. The first being, “What time of day was it? what were the lighting conditions. The second, ”Were there any obstructions blocking his view of this poor girl?”
A real tragedy for this young woman, her family, my sincere condolences to them. Like I said, He has some very serious questions to answer.
However it does highlight the fact that if you own a firearm the most likely person to die at the end of it is you or a member of your family.
However if he'd only had a knife he'd have stabbed her, if he'd only had a stick he'd have beaten her to death with that. Failing to have any of these weapons he'd have dragged her to the top of the stairs in order to throw her down them. Either way the gun is irrelevant. She was going to die anyway.
I love this logic.
The wife said the reason for moving here was because she did not want to bring childeren into the world, living in fear of crime, in a fortified home with firearms all over the house. You would not believe the security they had around their home in South Africa. They are a lovely couple the lads are a credit to them. She has never regretted the move and frankly the neighbourhood is a nicer place for them living here. Have'nt had a chance to speak to either about this tragedy yet.
However we need to remember that this particular story appears to be about a law abiding gun owner who lost his temper and is now in front of a magistrate on a murder charge.
I wonder if anyone will suggest that he's a criminal and should never have been allowed a legal firearm in the first place?
Hi, pop, you know I don't live in CA;
I guess you think I'm a bleedin-heart liberal!
Not really, I'm a rationalist.
You know from my prev posts on the gun issue, that my home near Salvador in Bahia was, and still is, defended by high wall, razorwire, dogs, a gun, a baseball bat, electronic security, security cameras that we can view in real time from most places in the world on-line, movement sensors linked to floodlights, local private street/beach security staff, as well as the official police & military police
....... just like Pistorious in South Africa, and for just the same reasons - those that don't have things try to get things from those that do.
The handgun was more to discourage street hold-ups at traffic lights, but it also protects the final refuge in the home.
Yes, I have always been aware that there is a chance that family or staff are at risk of 'the great mistake' - of being mistaken for an armed intruder. But the local risk was (and still is) HIGH.
Users frequently have basic weapons such as handguns, but the dealers kit out with machine pistols, AKs, and - in the favelas - heavy machine guns.
Not much you can do about the dealers, but you should be able to defend the home from the users, etc.
My argument, Poppy, is that in the States, every man and his dog can kit themselves out like a dealer or a survivalist; like a one-man-army.
Too many do ... and we see the results.
“.... your opinion that every gun owner is “kit” out as a one man Army.”
I said:
“Too many do ... and we see the results.”
I say:
Even one 'crazy' so kitted-out is one too many.
Imagine YOUR son being one of the eg. 200 killed in a one-person killing blitz.
Worry about the murder rates per capita in Brazil:
chartsbin.com/view/1454
As well as the many millions of US citizens who legally pack handguns, shotguns and rifles,
and the powerfully armed US survivalists – who are now counted by the millions,
there are also over four million US Preppers (‘survivalists lite’). These are regular people with regular jobs and homes who are increasingly preparing for a domestic future embracing armed conflict.
Sensible or paronoid, the growing number of Preppers, Survivalists and Gun Lobbyists in America who are packing serious *military* arsenals presents a clear and present threat to communities and the state.
It is a positive feedback. The more people that have guns, the more people that have to have guns. The more people that have heavy military weaponry in the home, the more people that feel they have to respond by acquiring heavy military weaponry.
This upward accelerating spiral is the logic of the mad-house. There has to be a set of actions that break this paranoia and aberrent psychology. It can only be effected through the office of the President. The Senate is compromised, and there will be no help from the Church.
While I agree that some individuals probably deserve to die for their crimes I oppose the death penalty on principle. It serves no real purpose and is irrevocable. A justice system can never be perfect and yet execution is rather final.
Your comment about serial killers is an interesting point. Serial killers don't really choose to become serial killers - they are serial killers. They were born that way - it is part of who they are. They are mentally disturbed people that should be locked up for life - and studied. I imagine you would find that incredible but if you read something like “He Who Fights Monsters” by Robert Ressler (an American FBI agent) you'd understand why I said it.
As for your comment about whether people would support the death penalty if their relative was murdered you could turn that round and ask would you support the death penalty if an equally close member of your family had been convicted of murder? What if one had killed the other?
All gun crime victims families are asking for is for further restrictions on everyone's right to bear arms. Restrictions already exist in the USA so it's not really a question of principle only one of degree.
There has to be a set of actions that break this paranoia and aberrent psychology.
It can only be effected through the office of the President.' (GW)
The President of the USA has balanced powers ... (Captain Poppy (#72))
I feel sure you know where I am going, pop.
USA society's checks and balances are failing massively to protect its people. The threat is obvious for all those with eyes to see, and it needs the country's elected leader to LEAD the wilfully blind.
That's why we call them leaders.
You are obviously not happy with the situation, you can always form a grass roots push and get a p[etition going and get it placed on the ballot to outlaw guns so over the government and criminals have guns. Are you will to do that if you do not like the gun situation in the USA?
It just reminds me of the fox hunting debate in the UK. I don't care about fox hunting either but the arguments put forward by the fox hunting lobby are nothing short of idiotic. They'd get more respect if they just said “I enjoy going hunting” than all the other nonsense they come out with.
From what we've heard so far he will have to be incredibly imaginitive to extricate himself from this one.
Judge Dredd block wars spring to mind.
ATTENTION ALL USERS:
It has been brought to my attention that an imposter is posting malicious and racist comments under my name, in an attempt to discredit me.
The user name, “ troy tempest1” is NOT me.
Please disregard anti-British, racist or vulgar statements by my Doppleganger.
This is likely just one more attempt to get attention, by a well-known Troll with multiple accounts.
I HAVE ONLY ONE ACCOUNT AND ONE USER NAME: “Troy Tempest”
ALL OTHER VARIATIONS ARE IMPOSTERS.
Thank you for your understanding.
Climate, nations, all were in upheaval.
The Earth transformed into a poisonous, scorched desert, known as “The Cursed Earth”.
Millions of people crowded into a few Megacities, where roving bands of street savages created violence the justice system could not control.
Law, as we know it, collapsed.
From the decay rose a new order, a society ruled by a new, elite force.
A force with the power to dispense both justice and punishment.
They were the police, jury and executioner all in one.
They were the Judges.
You knew I'd say that.
I used section 1 (UK law) firearms - pistols and rifles from the age of 13, I am 67. Before the pistol bans my two sons and me had 27 pistols (single shot, revolvers and semi-automatics) all used for target shooting at the highest level in the UK.
We also had 15 rifles, some for target and other for quarry from vermin up to the largest deer in the UK.
Of section 2 firearms (shotguns, which are only lethal to 70M max) we had 14, mainly quarry but also trap and especially skeet..
I won’t bore you with how much ammunition we had. All of this was completely legal and fully justified by usage. Shooting was my main hobby and I could afford to do it.
Let me ask you about YOUR pistol(s). I will lay a bet it is not a revolver but a high capacity 9mm semi-auto, or better still a 0.45 acp, am I correct?
And if you came across someone armed with a gun of any description attempting to shoot you or a member of your family you would shoot to kill, would you not?
I Have never pointed a gun at any human being, and I did not go to Brazil for exactly that reason, I did not want to start.
But using you analogy, I could be accused of being a gun nut, could I not, and maybe even crazy for spending so much money on them?
I think your logic is flawed regarding the escalation from semi-auto to machine gun. AND, how do I know that? Because YOU have not got yourself a machine gun, have you?
Thx Poppy.
I know it is Sussie. I've informed the moderators.
I appreciate your support, and the vigilance of you and IdleHands and other posters.
If this happens again, please let others know that it is not me posting. That would be appreciated.
I have posted a statement to cover my ass.
One has to do that with Ssussie around.
So tell us - who is not entitled to own a Browning M2 machine gun? Only those not entitled to own any other firearm? As I understand it they come under the “vintage” rules so there would only be supply limitations.
Love the way you tell me to shut up without actually contributing any facts to the matter. Why am I wrong?
Here's a thought - you find it incomprehensible that others should regard your desire to maintain the right to bear arms to be madness - but here's the thing - we do. The reason you have such a firm belief is that from childhood you've had the American constitution and the second amendment drilled into you as a fundamental right - without much regard to the consequences by the sound of it. Few in Europe would share that view - it's simply not really an issue. It's a bit like the vast majority of Argentines believing they should have sovereignty over a bunch of islands whose name I forget at the moment.
I don't mind if Americans want to keep their weapons and shoot the place up. I'm just pointing out the folly in it.
I wonder if Pistorius is sat in his cell thinking “I'm a law abiding citizen with a licence to own a firearm and I'm jolly glad I made the choice to buy one” Yes I know he's South African but that's not really the point.
You have to be at close quarters to kill with a knife,stick or whatever, so with logic surely you would recognise the person ( only if you knew them )A gun is much better, you could shoot through internal walls, you may not know the person you shoot. If you had a gun to defend yourself and someone had a knife. Who would you bet on ?
From post #53 “You have every right to voice you opinions as we all do hear, I have no problem with that at all. ”
Post#19
I have no problem putting some more guns laws into place.......ie. some national standardized background checks. Christ....the the CG does more background checks on me for my captains license than they do to get a gun. There are too many loopholes in the backgrond checks. There are no standardized training, but to get a drivers license, one needs drivers education. I will never advocate restricting gun ownership in the USA, but I would like to insure that people with questionable backgrounds do not get one and the ones that do are trained and educated. A gun seems to give the ignorant a false sense of bravado.
Post #24
idlemind is more appropriate than idelhands.
Raven as an America I have no compunction placing some limits on the 2nd amemdment in the USA. The stale echos of an argument is that we cannot impose a qualification on a constitutional amendment, but that's bullshit. Any American that believes that ignors the fact that:
4th guarantees a warrent to be searched, yet we know that is bullshit
5th guarantees the right to due process, yet gitmo proves that a restriction
6th guarantees a right to a speedy trial and see evidence sued to charge you. Again refer to gitmo
8th guarantees bail, yet we do hold people without bail.
Why? in the name of public safety. Yet no politician in the USA has the balls to stand up to the NRA. Yes.....we' can restrict and limit the constitution when we want to and it's time we do.
How do you get what I say and change it? Can you please reconcile the two...what I said of others opinion and what you just restated what you think I said? IS a a South American or Brazilan thing to read a condensed versions of posts, of yours
I'm not advocating amending the second amendment. You need a radical rethink and to start from scratch. I would advocate abolishing the second amendment and remove entirely from American thinking that you have a fundamental right to bear arms. It's a 17th century concept that makes no sense in the 21st.
I am well aware that Americans would find that abhorrent and reject the idea out of hand - but that's not because of human thinking it is because of American thinking. If you asked your typical European whether they wanted to replicate American gun culture in their society you'd get an overwhelming no.
I know it's politically impossible but I'd prefer a society where there are no guns than one where everyone owns one.
....and before you dismiss me as an anti gun wet liberal I should point out I've got an RAF marksman's badge in the bottom of a drawer somewhere.
Obviously your statements point and suggest you are right in your thinking. And your suggestion the Americans are not human in their thinking is appalling. It Brits like ou why to trash was removed 227 years ago. Ypu have kings, well queens that can waive the wound anc outlaw guns. ALL of our leaders are freely elected, not born as leaders. Argue until you are royal purple, hate the American way, no one really cares what a Brit in Brazil thinks.
Great for your Airmen marksmen medals, I have a nootchs on my chest as an 18bravo during my days in the Army. But that doesn't make me a gun toting conservative.
BTW, do you know it takes the federal congress to vote for an constitutional bill, then it is passed to the states, who are sovereign states themselves, for ratification and 3/4 of the states must vote before it can be an amendment? We made it that way so a elected tyrant do change it to fit his power. It's getting old arguing with a old, angry retired brit living in SA.
The NRA falsely claims that these new laws didn't work and yet the proof is in the statistics.
The US is welcome to whatever laws it see fit to have but with a much higher murder rate than Australia, it is not just guns that are the problem.
I have firsthand experience in military 'marksmanship'. I could do better with my eyes closed.
And this is not at all surprising given that the military do not want to kill the enemy, they usually want to wound them for the simple reason that extra resources are needed to care for the wounded but the dead are mourned but do not slow the attack down.
But you are in danger of sounding a little hysterical now with your comment about ‘trash’ being removed 227 year ago.
This paragraph is quite apoplexic:
“Ypu have kings, well queens that can waive the wound anc outlaw guns. ALL of our leaders are freely elected, not born as leaders. Argue until you are royal purple, hate the American way, no one really cares what a Brit in Brazil thinks.”
Her Majesty The Queen is our HEAD OF STATE. She only has ONE executive responsibility and that is to approve OR NOT the proposed Prime Minister who is an elected MP but voted as PM by his party. I don’t even know if the Queen has EVER rejected a proposed PM because she is guided by the Heads of the Civil Service, the non-elected people who carry on the continuity of government whist a new government is elected. SHE CANNOT BAN ANYTHING and you are guilty of the same ignorance as you have accused others.
I was one of the 59,000 who lost an awful lot of pistols in the ban but I will not stand by and listen to you abuse MY Queen just because you cannot handle the comments
I guess now that you all finished of RG you can work on the USA in this blog. But I suggest you all look in your mirror first.
I can say that I am not sure what the answer is for the USA, but a Brit and Aussie won't have it.
Don't get upset, I really do care what you think and I've learned a lot from your postings, from Chris, Idle and the rest.
Nobody pretends its easy, but I would hate to see the cities of the USA following in the footsteps of Brasil's 'frightened cities'.
The fact that this Brit has experienced an armed defence /armed attack society makes for a stronger argument than someone that has only seen things from the relative safety of the UK.
I hold to my opinion.
Do I think we have a problem....absolutley
Do I think it's an easy fix....far from it
Do I think statisically it's a small number....at 1/100 of 1 percent....I do
but I do also think 1 death is too many. I know what a bullet does and it's not like TV. I can tell you that American's are not walking around in fear that they will be shoot....maybe if the trend continues they will. We have our our set of problems because in many ways we are unique......at times uniquely good and other time not so.
And Chris I am not abusing your queen. ANd I am not getting into a pissing match over royalty.....I believe our governments long ago settled that battle. However I will be forthright in telling you I am adamently against the concept of a person being better and special by birth because they are born to someone......royalty. But I do not have to deal with that, you do. Apparently you yourself have problems with people expressing their opinions when it comes to royalty. So as you may not stand by and watch me express my opinion and my constitutional freedoms of political speech, your only recourse is to denigrate my country to the point of not being able to handle the comments as you suggest.
“I can say that I am not sure what the answer is for the USA, but a Brit and Aussie won't have it.”
That's the exact same argument Argentineans use. Piss weak mate. Piss weak.
The US could learn a lot from Australia. Though considering you have shown that you have so little knowledge of Australia in your recent post, it isn't surprising that you don't.
Making the allegation that the Queen can ban guns and do anything else with our law is ludicrous in the extreme.
Your President can VETO laws correctly considered by both the Senate and Congress and you don't think that is unacceptable?
“your only recourse is to denigrate my country to the point of not being able to handle the comments as you suggest.” As far as I can remember I have never done that so please provide me with a post number of mine where I have.
The UK queen can also veto any legislative bill but is not elected to office. Is that not unacceptable to you?
I can say the same for you anglo, but I don't think your ego will allow you to consider that, I am certain you know most everything and have no compunction passing that knowledge on and cannot for the life of you understand why others do not see it.
“your only recourse is to denigrate my country”
So are you now claiming that I did not take that course? The converse looks like what you claimed.
“en.mercopress.com/2013/02/13/obama-challenges-congress-to-take-a-vote-on-a-package-of-progressive-reforms#comment218198: The US president is elected. This is why the veto power is acceptable.
The UK queen can also veto any legislative bill but is not elected to office. Is that not unacceptable to you?”
Hepatia, what you fail to realise is that in these two examples of strong, 'real' Democracies, the overriding mandate for the Head of State, is that they must rule for the benefit of the the country and the people, and follow principles of Human Rights, above all else.
The President, though elected, is not partisan. He is expected to be the President, for ALL Americans, not just those of his party or those who voted for him.
The Queen, non-elected, is not aligned politically with anyone. The Monarchy has evolved over the past 1,000 years, by Acts of Parliament (the voice of the People) from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy.
The Queen stays out of politics and policy, and only exercises her Veto to keep a government in line with the wishes of the people.
Yes? With me?
Then I said something to the effect. Your only recourse ( to my alleged ABUSING YOUR QUEEN) is to denigrate my country. Follow me. Your only recourse if you felt I was abusing your queen is to use words back at me, because there is nothing else you can do. You are not exactly going to put me in a choke hold, words is all you could do if you will not sit by and listening to me abuse your queen, which in my opinion I was not. I am sure you would not want me to show you the difference as I do not wish to go there.
Follow me?
Don't twist my intent.
Shall we call it a draw then? :o)
Good!! Great example of being reasonable.
If you guys were Argentine Trolls, you would still be jumping up and down, flinging pooh and empanadas at each other.
:-)
the true is that the UK team don't want to upgrade their web site because their
objective is to use derogative words to make argentinians feel “bad”.
but as everyone can see the verbal personal attacks against the argentine leader, her family, argentina and argentinian continues.
is the island the reason for the verbal attacks? NO
is CFK the reason for the insults? NO
is the bad economy? NO
ARGENTINA IS A N T I- B R I T I S H
AND WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
The UK goverment did it wrong to resume diplomatic relations after the 1982
invasion. the UK goverment has the choice to stop diplomatic relations but
instead....David Cameron keeps bitching about the “argentine goverment
harassment” uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujajaja
So tell us about how you feel so “bad” after reading posts on here!
Tell us how you feel “bad” about your PAPI, that story always makes me laugh!!
LOL!!!
Sussie, I think Timerman looks like a chimpanzee with big ears.
CFK looks like Timerman wearing a wig LOL!!!
www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Chimp+girl+images&oq=Chimp+girl+images&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...31814.39608.0.41656.13.13.0.0.0.0.247.1765.4j8j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1ac.1.4.mobile-gws-serp.eROc8Fdrhpc#biv=i%7C38;d%7CcTlrZ6zKick-XM:
remember i am an USA and ARGENTINA CITIZEN
That you should present this argument in the 21st century I find bizarre. This is an argument that belongs, and has been used, in the Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And it was explicitly rejected in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Whatever the merits of your argument that it is democratic is not one of them.
POOR GUY
THE ONLY THING HE NOWS IS TO REMOVE UNWELCOME COMMENTS.
HEY TROY aka TTT
I AM HERE TO STAY TO DUMP THE BIGGEST CRAP
lol
“That you should present this argument in the 21st century I find bizarre. This is an argument that belongs, and has been used, in the Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And it was explicitly rejected in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Whatever the merits of your argument that it is democratic is not one of them.”
The British Monarchy of today, 2013, is far different from the Monarchy of the 1700's.
The USA changed their status of being a colony, ruled from overseas, because they rejected the common economic system of Mercantilism, and “taxation without representation”. Fair enough.
European nations rejected their Monarchies to be replaced by more modern forms of government by the common people,
France - Emperor
Russia - communism
Spain - fascism - Franco
Italy - fascism - Mussolini
Germany - fascism - Hitler's Nazi's
Do you see a pattern there?
Meanwhile, amongst the most recognised Democratic countries in the world, are the ones with a Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, Scotland, and of course, other Independent Commonwealth nations.
How about this for a simplistic answer.
If the public stand outside Buckingham Palace and beat pots and pans a la Argentina, she would know the wishes of the people - not happy bunnies.
If they crowd round and cheer on her visits, everything is fine.
Can you understand this ???????
Another thing that the US could learn from Australia is the IRV system. The introduction of this system would give the voters more choice of candidates and, possibly, break down the two party system.
The use of electoral commissions to set district boundaries in accordance with law would be a positive move for the US. (Australia is not alone in implementing this scheme.) This would break the present system in which politicians select their voters rather than the desired property of a democracy where the voters select their representative. It would make the general election mean something once more.
But I think Australia could learn from the US. For instance I hear that the concept of ballot measures does not exist in Australia. Likewise with recall elections. You might even care to recall the “Queen of Australia”! :)
“gun control” will not stop the insane from the massive continuing killing.
any person that has visited or reside in the USA can see thousands of crazy
usa military personnel sleeping in bus stations and goverment buildings.
most of these “veterans” cannot cope with the civilian life after returning
from duty. Only a few understands that they need professional help.
the usa seal navy officer that killed the taliban leader 2 years ago stated he cannot do any type of work to earn a living, is disable and in financial ruin.
Love it - having a tantrum at your keyboard just makes you - um - err - entertaining.
NB You can abuse the Queen all you like - don't know why anyone would care about that.
You also misrepresented my comment about “humans” - other humans around the world don't regard owning a firearm as a human right - only Americans seem to do that. You can't interpret that to mean Americans aren't human. Human rights are things like freedom of speech etc - not the right to tote a gun like it's the extension of an otherwise undersized phallus.
Maybe some mortuary photographs of American five year olds with the backs of the skulls blasted out and their brains dripping onto the cold hard steel below might make you think about if the right to bear arms is sensible. Maybe video of the parents identifying the corpses or the throngs of people gathering at the funerals would help too? These are your fellow Americans that are dying but as long as you keep your right to bear arms it matters little. “I will give up my gun when you tear it from my cold dead hand” - er....OK - somebody pass me the tranquilisers.
It's Feb 18th - how long until we get to hear more stories of dead American children sacrificed on the altar of American Freedoms? Tick tock tick tock.
NB Can any poster on here point to any evidence on any message I have ever posted that even vaguely indicates that I live in Brazil - or any other part of South America for that matter? Inspector Poppy wants the right to shoot burglars but I'm worried that his detective/identification skills are on a par with Oscar Pistorius.
(that should keep him bubbling nicely)
#5 I don't care if Americans want to shoot each other but they could at least admit to their lunacy on the matter.
If that is your POV good for you. You have that right. This I ask you........you made a lot of assupmtions. Please restate, succinctly if you will. What my argument FOR guns are? I apparently must have stated here that we need guns to fight criminals and I am still looking for it. In fact, please provide me with my background as I am so naive and out of touch with gun related death. Detective idlenot, not everything or most anything was pointed to you, only the posters that made interesting points. SO I task you Detective idlenot:
What is my stated argument for keeping guns and position on gun control?
what is my background?
Two simple questions for someone that knows it all.....yes?
This post is directed to you as you are quite a liberal extremist, of the mindset you thinking is the right thinking.
You don't need to be a “liberal extremist” to think everyone owning a gun is a stupid idea. NB The word “liberal” is not an insult to anyone other than an American.
If you're not naive about gun related deaths (your words) then one can only assume that you do agree that other peoples children are a price worth paying for your right to own a gun.
Lots of love...
The Boy From Brazil....??????
I did not think you could anwser my questions.
As for the use of liberal, it was not intended as an insult, I am considered liberal in the USA by the right and the liberals consider me conservative......saying you were from SA was, but I am not as clever with insults as you....so I guess I failed. And somehow I believe you have never traveled far from your island........especially SA the land you loath.
If you ever change you mind, let me know and I will send you some diapers.
You really are a sad, old angry, bitter man. If I cared I would feel sorry for you.
Enjoy your phallus'
I'll leave you to daydream about your guns and puzzling over why you've so easily become akin to the Duracel Bunny. Anyone got any spares? Wouldn't want it to run out.
You clearly are old and the world awaits it's just prize for your aging out. But please......don't wait so long.
I may a little more about the system in the UK. Let me explain it to you. The “House of Commons” is the equivalent to the HoR. The “Lords” is similar to the senate. The elections that are held every 5 years is for the Commons. There are no other elections.
The administration , including the premier and attorney general, is not elected but is appointed, nominally by the Queen, but in actual fact by the members of the majority party in the Commons.
The members of the Lords are appointed by the administration for a life term.
Most bills are introduced by the administration directly and it is very rare for one of these bills not to pass. The legislature acts mainly as a rubber stamp for the executive.
So, do you think that this system is more or less democratic than the system in the US? IMO it is so less democratic than the US system that I am not sure it can be called democratic at all.
Hmmm - who is sounding bitter and who is sounding bemused?
Answers on a postcard.............
Ah! The hyprocrisy or idiocy but probably both of this poster shines through at the final sentence, as always.
I do not care what Europeans do in Europe. I do care when they attempt to import their system to America.
You have lost me again. Where are Europeans trying to import their system into America ? Examples please.
Being you care about this import, you imply you live in the USA....where?
Also, please enlighten me how Europe is importing their version of democracy to the USA as I feeled to see it.
She obviously doesn't want anyone to shine a light on her own country which has had 6 coups in less than 100 years. She talks about unelected leaders and yet how did poor Cristina come to power?
She talks of no recall elections in Australia and thereby shows her ignorance of what role the Queen truly holds.
I would love to see the part in Argentina constitution that enables a recall.
Her ignorance is breathtaking and yet she plods along typing away thinking she is scoring points.
The simply truth is that the US, UK and Australia are all more democratic than Argentina. She really needs to learn a little more about a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy.
She'll keep going on like a good La Campora soldier and I will keep looking for military rule in our countries..... nope Argentina finally beats us at something...
6-nil
6-nil
6-nil
Damn we're still losing!!!!!
It'll probably be 7-nil when La Campora takes over.
Hep, who has claim to Hawaii that the USA stole? It is nowhere near North America? Doesn't it get old crying about something that is not your's and you can't have. Claiming proximity makes it rgentina's is a waste of oxygen. If you would only grow up,pick up your bags and move on, live in rgentina might get better, after they remove kirchner.
P.S. Do you suffer from Dyslexia?
No it is not .
his proposal is failing.
immigration reform already failed.
gun control won't pass.
I have the right to buy any type of rifle i want,
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujajaj
Do you not feel foolish and juvenile ghosting names and pretending to be others? Are you a classic example of Rgentine counter intelligence? We know how this news blog is a threat to rgentina's national security. Are you their.....“Bourne Identity”? lol
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujajajajaja
Ummm..... no!
By my count that's a whole 24 hours
.......“this news blog is a threat to rgentina national security”
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujajaja
pay attention stupid:
Sussie have contacted several US federal agencies reporting Mercopress
threat made by the brits. The US federal agencies said that is nothing more than a website to compete with insults.
Although Mercopress have the choice to delete offensive language and/or
threats, the brits prefer to post with the most offensive words and threats
I enjoy dumping of more CRAP!
“I enjoy dumping of more CRAP!”
And sometimes she does state the obvious! At least she is STATING it..... and not EATING it.
Yet!
she likes the competition of dumping CRAP....,,,,,but the really winner is the UK team CRAP CONTEST!
what a waste!
Your constant focus and interest in scat is quite amusing.
Don't change sweetpea. Every village needs an idiot!
Sussie is right.
i am not an argie
that is why she never answer to me, or with ,,,,,,LA THINK!
,,,,,,if Mercopress accept my name to be use as a screen name by somebody else
means,,,,,is not registered.
as you know all of the UK team are not registered with mercopress
I am afraid of the China cyber attacks.
well you know the brits like to protect their assholes.
yes, i know she is anti-british and she can kill more than one brit.
i stay away from her.
tonight is my graveyard shift,,,, have to watch any possible attack.
I know I said that she talks about herself in the third person..... but I think she thought I said she needs to talk to herself WITH a third person.
Sussie I still haven't reported the account you use to impersonate me.
I don't need people to differentiate between us by the inclusion or lack of ZEROES in our names but by our intellect.
You can't argue and have next to no intelligence.
You represent Argentina.
I represent Australia (not British as you keep alluding to).
My country comes out looking so much better than yours everytime either one of us comments.
Please stay here. Keep commenting. Keep your new login and keep impersonating me.
As I said, every village needs an idiot! Argentina is the village idiot of nations and you are the village idiot on here.
Bye sweetie.
Yes I agree that you are indeed “anti-English speaking”. To be honest, for someone that claims to live in the US, your level of English is atrocious.
It's as if you are replying to the voices in your head and then write down just one half of the conversation.
But if this sock puppet was the best reply you could one up with, you have only verified what I said in my post 161.
Please continue at your convenience. Don't make me wait for the Angl0tin0 sock puppet pleeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee!
there is no one posting in merco-british crap-press that have the ability to write in good english, that can demostrate be smart enough to stop the bullshit from the UK PM Cameron words: “the argentine goverment harassment” against the islanders. If the UK don't break diplomatic relations with Argentina then the UK should keep quite.
I resided in Surfers Paradise, Queensland and could not understand the “poor australian” english language. the use of words such as “ring” instead of call by telephone, the word “flat” for apartment, the word “nappies” for diapers, etc.etc. The australians like the rest of english speaking countries have the most REPULSIVE accent.
the Aussies men likes to wear the smallest swim suit which makes them looks ridiculous. same thing with men from New Zealand.
In the USA people speaks english very differently.
the majority of british, australians, new zealands, irish visiting the usa have difficulties trying to understand the american english.
the usa citizens are not interest to talk to people with REPULSIVE
australian accent .
the mexican american accent is more acceptable.
as you can see you better mind your own country and stay away from the USA and Argentina economy.
your country is a shithole.
BTW....that is you satire of speaking english.....right?
Sussie I absolutely LOVE this sock puppet. Especially being a gay Aussie. I'm a little upset you didn't use your Angl0tin0 sock puppet though.
“there is no one posting in merco-british crap-press that have the ability to write in good english”
Well there is one thing for sure, you amply proved this!
And don't worry think we definitely should “stay away from the USA and Argentina economy”. The US has much higher inequality than we do and we definitely don't want that.
And Argentina..... well Argentina is an economic basket case. It's the reason why people like you leave.
So we have already taken your advice. That's why we have LOW unemployment, LOW inflation, LOW government debt, HIGH incomes and HIGH growth.
Take that list and Argentina has the EXACT opposite.
“the majority of british, australians, new zealands, irish visiting the usa have difficulties trying to understand the american english.”
Ummm no. No problem. However have you ever seen how Mexcians, Colombians and other Latin Americans make fun of the Argentine accent. It's quite hilarious. Maybe that's where you got confused. That's why I speak with a Colombian accent as I didn't want to sound like an Argentine.
Mmmmmm speedoes! Thanks for the image.
@162 cdc
Oh no, Sussie this sock puppet is boring! More hyperbole please.
So difficult to find a good troll these days! 10/10 for tenacity but honestly only 3/10 for entertainment value.
Still haven't reported a single post yet. Way way too funny!
the only thing you show is your ignorance.
The citizens of the USA are not interested in imitating the“ british accent” because is simply unpleasant.
The citizens of Argentina are not interested in imitating the “spanish accent” from Spain.
other spanish speaking countries in SA don't speak the “spanish accent” from Spain.
your comment about “other Latin Americans make fun of the Argentine accent” is incorrect.
I belong to several Latin American clubs in the USA and overseas.
no one laugh about my “argentine accent”
I you speak with a“ colombian accent” that is your choice.
es hora de mi almuerzo: polenta con albondigas y cerveza!
mmmmmmmmmm Salud, Dinero y Amor.
Adios.
That is a bunch of pigshit.....don't try speaking for real Americans. Most Americans find a proper British accent most classy, even Argentines I (mine are middleclass Argentines) love the British accent and find it classy as well. The British are reputed for being well mannered and proper and 7 out of ten I know are, so to me and I am sure most, they live up to their reputation.
Do they laugh at your fragmented English with its poor grammar at these clubs?
Of course not, they are like you, bitter and twisted like most Argies; especially the ones who live in other countries.
Would you please define “a British accent” I live in Britain and there are dozens of variations and intonations in speech.
I would presume the same variations occur in all countries.
The “Spanish ”accent in Catalonia, Galicia and Andalucia is different from that spoken in Madrid. Mexicans speak Spanish with a different accent from Spaniards. I actually like listening to it - maybe a childhood throwback to watching Zorro or the Cisco Kid.
The USA has different regional accents from “standard” American English, which I presume would be based in the New England states.
So, what you are saying is, that as an anti-British Argentinian who frequents like minded Latin American clubs in the USA you don't like hearing a British accent. Surprise, surprise.
Is it because it reminds you of your inferiority ?
Upper American society seem to revel in using British presenters at their top award ceremonies. Why would this be if they find it so unpleasant.
Sussie used to come out with this same line of talk - blooody rubbish British accent. Are you related by any chance ?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!