At least your honest unlike the rest of the left wingers here. All though I disagree with you.Shooting a 'terrorist' is usually terrorism in my view. Arming the police simply means more people die.
At least your honest unlike the rest of the left wingers here. All though I disagree with you.Shooting a 'terrorist' is usually terrorism in my view. Arming the police simply means more people die.
Just wanted to pick something up in here because I thought it was quite fascinating and very telling of what myself and a handful of others are trying to deal with in this thread. What you've essentially admitted to is that only state sponsored news is acceptable. What an incredible admission.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![]()
If you really believe what you've just posted, then you're an even thicker **** than you appear to beJust wanted to pick something up in here because I thought it was quite fascinating and very telling of what myself and a handful of others are trying to deal with in this thread. What you've essentially admitted to is that only state sponsored news is acceptable. What an incredible admission.
Just wanted to pick something up in here because I thought it was quite fascinating and very telling of what myself and a handful of others are trying to deal with in this thread. What you've essentially admitted to is that only state sponsored news is acceptable. What an incredible admission.
Just wanted to pick something up in here because I thought it was quite fascinating and very telling of what myself and a handful of others are trying to deal with in this thread. What you've essentially admitted to is that only state sponsored news is acceptable. What an incredible admission.
R-r-racist...?Woman schools two guys on the problems of being black.
(No doubt they're minstrels made up by the web site owners)
You must log in or register to see media
You only trust the BBC to be without bias, ergo you only trust state news.No I haven't. You thick ****.
As much as you want them to be, the Tories aren't right wing, this is very well subject to change in the future though.The BBC may well be taxpayer funded by compulsion, but then you can't have it both ways. Our current Gvt is Tory, as it has been for over 6 years.
Your assertion falls flat in the intimation that, as its state 'sponsored' as you call it, it espouses the Gvt views.
It doesn't....
As much as you want them to be, the Tories aren't right wing, this is very well subject to change in the future though.
I see no difference between the Tories and New Labour.So the Tories aren't right wing!?? (Enough for you!).
Well, for any of us who had any small doubts, I think we all know where you're coming from now.,...
Go and polish your jackboots!...

I was pointing out the hypocrisy but you didnt seem interestedHow have I deflected? I asked you which points you were objecting to.
Being a white supremacist isn't illegal, nor is working for Goldman Sachs or being a complete dick.
He's not being accused of criminality in any of those cases, so the comparison's irrelevant.
As for the wife beating, he appears to have rolled over in the divorce to escape charges, as his missus had him over a barrel.
He threatened her to get her to avoid testifying against him, according to their divorce filings.