They ARE ALL innocent since they were not convicted before being killed. And there can be no justification for killing other innocent people in response. But people get angry when they are mistreated and then things go out of control.
The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Yeah, I get it, you won't watch it at all because it is presented by someone who is a conservative, and because of that you think you can instantly disregard it. This is No Testosterone Tobes level of argument, absolute intellectual dishonesty, you're better than that.
I'm not interested in watching anything you present as "evidence". You're a stone cold, ignorant racist who is terrified of non whites. ****s like you are best mocked and ridiculed. Hopefully, like Saxton, you can't reproduce
So, given his political outlook, preference, far right bias, it wouldn't occur to you that his view might just be ever so slightly biased towards the police?...
Well, funnily enough, it did to me!...
If we're talking about lack of testosterone, how about we discuss the merits of a white supremacist immigrant who supposedly wants to defend the 'culture' of white Brits, but who still hasn't had the bollocks to even admit where he hails from.
You sackless Nazi
As a general rule, if the source is breitbart, the Fail, or the Excess, it can probably be dismissed as hateful, lurid nonsense unworthy of serious consideration. If the source is The Times, The Telegraph, or the Spectator, expect it to be right leaning but probably fairly well considered and not without substance. If the source is the BBC I trust it to be largely without bias. If the source is The Guardian then I, being a bit of a pinko liberal, would be aware that it might be pandering to my own prejudices.
If the source is yourself, Hull Afc, or the multi-kitchened nazi garage dweller, I'm going to assume it's semi psychotic, deluded gibberish. Hope this helps
This isn't what I'm arguing about, you can preach your ideology on the death sentence elsewhere, the fact is these high profile cases are not as cut and dry as people first believe.
As a general rule, if the source is breitbart, the Fail, or the Excess, it can probably be dismissed as hateful, lurid nonsense unworthy of serious consideration. If the source is The Times, The Telegraph, or the Spectator, expect it to be right leaning but probably fairly well considered and not without substance. If the source is the BBC I trust it to be largely without bias. If the source is The Guardian then I, being a bit of a pinko liberal, would be aware that it might be pandering to my own prejudices.
If the source is yourself, Hull Afc, or the multi-kitchened nazi garage dweller, I'm going to assume it's semi psychotic, deluded gibberish. Hope this helps
.
I'm not interested in watching anything you present as "evidence". You're a stone cold, ignorant racist who is terrified of non whites. ****s like you are best mocked and ridiculed. Hopefully, like Saxton, you can't reproduce
It's responses like these that tell us why we are heading in the political direction we are heading.As a general rule, if the source is breitbart, the Fail, or the Excess, it can probably be dismissed as hateful, lurid nonsense unworthy of serious consideration. If the source is The Times, The Telegraph, or the Spectator, expect it to be right leaning but probably fairly well considered and not without substance. If the source is the BBC I trust it to be largely without bias. If the source is The Guardian then I, being a bit of a pinko liberal, would be aware that it might be pandering to my own prejudices.
If the source is yourself, Hull Afc, or the multi-kitchened nazi garage dweller, I'm going to assume it's semi psychotic, deluded gibberish. Hope this helps
The death sentence wasn't mentioned in my response. The ideology of 'Innocent until proven guilty' certainly came up though. I'm a firm believer in proof of guilt before any punishment is imposed by any state. Once the police have shot you dead it seems a bit hollow though.
It's because of scared, racist **** houses like you, that we're headed on the direction we're heading
I'm with you on that, but they have guns in America so the police have them too. And with that logic, should we not shoot terrorists?
No, pal. That's just you trying to justify your hate and prejudice to others here.
Nobody, apart from Tubby two kitchens, Dull, Dog's pee-pee, or Kustard, has the remotest interest in your racist, Nazi views.
Go peddle your hate filled **** to some like minded morons...!
I almost agree with that. The wide availability on the net of fantasy parading as fact has led to a few more people not being able to discern the difference. The liberal mistake of openly pointing out this stupidity to people who actually have votes compounds the error.
Since this is a football forum let's do a thought experiment with democracy. Let's say half the teams in the league had their starting XI and substitutions determined by a vote of the fans. How do we think they would do against the other half who had autocratic decisions by experts?
I do believe in democracy but it is very fragile and easily broken.
It'll be the reporting procedure, lefties making it up, or something.......BBC News reporting a rise in bigoted attacks in the US. No doubt the Nazis will say the timing is a coincidence!
Shooting a 'terrorist' is usually terrorism in my view. Arming the police simply means more people die.
- Status