Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878 ... 2154  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6994
What if the puppy isn't a puppy but instead is a person who tries to kill you and declares that he wants to exterminate your race?


Last edited by Santa on Thu May 17, 2018 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53068
Quote:
But Israel has a very good public relations machine so they get very favorable coverage in most western media


Is literally the opposite of truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7402
Fat Old Git wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Seems to take the line of "well the Israelis are bad, no doubt, BUT HAMAS ARE WORSE THEY'RE SO BAD".


Pretty much the only sensible line to take on the whole issue.


It shouldn't really surprise anyone that after 70 years of brutal oppression many of the oppressed have ended up quite unhinged.

If I get a puppy, beat it, strave it and lock it in a cage for most of it's life, and it ends up biting me, which one of us deserves the blame?


Yeah - you might not want to follow that analogy to it's end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53068
zzzz wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Seems to take the line of "well the Israelis are bad, no doubt, BUT HAMAS ARE WORSE THEY'RE SO BAD".


Pretty much the only sensible line to take on the whole issue.


It shouldn't really surprise anyone that after 70 years of brutal oppression many of the oppressed have ended up quite unhinged.

If I get a puppy, beat it, strave it and lock it in a cage for most of it's life, and it ends up biting me, which one of us deserves the blame?


Yeah - you might not want to follow that analogy to it's end.



Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7402
Flockwitt wrote:
Meanwhile Europe has decided they're not going to play ball with Trumpy. Nope, not at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/united-against-trump-eu-invokes-measures-to-combat-sanctions/ar-AAxqJUW?ocid=spartandhp


Mainly symbolic - not going to be a lot of help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8022
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Santa wrote:
What if the puppy isn't a puppy but instead is a person who tries to kill you and declares that he wants to exterminate your race?


Yeah it’s much easier to treat people like that than puppies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7281
zzzz wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Meanwhile Europe has decided they're not going to play ball with Trumpy. Nope, not at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/united-against-trump-eu-invokes-measures-to-combat-sanctions/ar-AAxqJUW?ocid=spartandhp


Mainly symbolic - not going to be a lot of help.

Take your point and might well agree regards the end of the Iranian deal, but would want to see just much of a get out of jail card it provides the Iran economy. And I don't think Europe drawing a line in the sand regards the Trump tarrifs is symbolic. They won't just sit and take whatever Trump decides is right for America first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6994
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
What if the puppy isn't a puppy but instead is a person who tries to kill you and declares that he wants to exterminate your race?


Yeah it’s much easier to treat people like that than puppies.


That's in your background not mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53068
zzzz wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Meanwhile Europe has decided they're not going to play ball with Trumpy. Nope, not at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/united-against-trump-eu-invokes-measures-to-combat-sanctions/ar-AAxqJUW?ocid=spartandhp


Mainly symbolic - not going to be a lot of help.



And they want to keep the German tech contract too


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21772
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Santa wrote:
What if the puppy isn't a puppy but instead is a person who tries to kill you and declares that he wants to exterminate your race?


Well obviously you don't do anything that might try and change the way you have made them feel about you. Or at the very least change the way their children might feel about you. And you certainly don't acknowledge that you might be responsible in any way at all for the situation. That would be silly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18488
bimboman wrote:
RuggaBugga wrote:
bimboman wrote:
RuggaBugga wrote:
bimboman wrote:

If people know those truths why do they ignore them in their commentaries ?


Certainly contradicts your commentary anyway.

bimboman wrote:
Ok, it's a siege where of course all their basic needs are met, aid and food flood into their besieged areas.



Well not really.


Yes really.



It questions one small part of my commentary, I assume you support its other assertions them ?


Yes you tend to assume quite a lot.

One small part eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 418
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
But Israel has a very good public relations machine so they get very favorable coverage in most western media


Is literally the opposite of truth.



All I hear is that Israel must use live ammo to defend themselves and use white phosphorus. And Hamas is bad. When do we ever see coverage of Israeli extremists?
No one in the media ever says Israel is not interested in peace either. trump was the first significant politician ever to say this.

When Richard Goldstone produced a report on the Gaza war suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, he was literally forced to retract it.

EU media may be different. But in North America, the media is mostly pro-Israel. 99% of politicians are in Israel's pocket literally thanks to AIPAC and its immense power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53068
free_safety wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
But Israel has a very good public relations machine so they get very favorable coverage in most western media


Is literally the opposite of truth.



All I hear is that Israel must use live ammo to defend themselves and use white phosphorus. And Hamas is bad. When do we ever see coverage of Israeli extremists?
No one in the media ever says Israel is not interested in peace either. trump was the first significant politician ever to say this.

When Richard Goldstone produced a report on the Gaza war suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, he was literally forced to retract it.

EU media may be different. But in North America, the media is mostly pro-Israel. 99% of politicians are in Israel's pocket literally thanks to AIPAC and its immense power.


You should listen to BBC , channel 4 , sky in the UK then maybe stop using the term Western.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7109
free_safety wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
But Israel has a very good public relations machine so they get very favorable coverage in most western media


Is literally the opposite of truth.



All I hear is that Israel must use live ammo to defend themselves and use white phosphorus. And Hamas is bad. When do we ever see coverage of Israeli extremists?
No one in the media ever says Israel is not interested in peace either. trump was the first significant politician ever to say this.

When Richard Goldstone produced a report on the Gaza war suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, he was literally forced to retract it.

EU media may be different. But in North America, the media is mostly pro-Israel. 99% of politicians are in Israel's pocket literally thanks to AIPAC and its immense power.


Ahh because it was wrong?

Quote:
The judge who chaired the controversial UN inquiry into Israel's attack on Gaza from December 2008 has expressed regret that his report may have been inaccurate.

Richard Goldstone, who led the committee that produced the Goldstone report, said in a newspaper article that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document".

The judge's article was welcomed by Israeli leaders. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, told ministers on Sunday: "There are very few incidents in which false accusations are taken back, and this is the case with the Goldstone report."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18563
Fat Old Git wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Seems to take the line of "well the Israelis are bad, no doubt, BUT HAMAS ARE WORSE THEY'RE SO BAD".


Pretty much the only sensible line to take on the whole issue.


It shouldn't really surprise anyone that after 70 years of brutal oppression many of the oppressed have ended up quite unhinged.

If I get a puppy, beat it, strave it and lock it in a cage for most of it's life, and it ends up biting me, which one of us deserves the blame?


Pre 67 gaza was run by Egypt and the West bank by Jordan. That would be real pre 67 borders. After 67 Israel tried to give them back but they weren't wanted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
_fatprop wrote:
free_safety wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
But Israel has a very good public relations machine so they get very favorable coverage in most western media


Is literally the opposite of truth.



All I hear is that Israel must use live ammo to defend themselves and use white phosphorus. And Hamas is bad. When do we ever see coverage of Israeli extremists?
No one in the media ever says Israel is not interested in peace either. trump was the first significant politician ever to say this.

When Richard Goldstone produced a report on the Gaza war suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, he was literally forced to retract it.

EU media may be different. But in North America, the media is mostly pro-Israel. 99% of politicians are in Israel's pocket literally thanks to AIPAC and its immense power.


Ahh because it was wrong?

Quote:
The judge who chaired the controversial UN inquiry into Israel's attack on Gaza from December 2008 has expressed regret that his report may have been inaccurate.

Richard Goldstone, who led the committee that produced the Goldstone report, said in a newspaper article that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document".

The judge's article was welcomed by Israeli leaders. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, told ministers on Sunday: "There are very few incidents in which false accusations are taken back, and this is the case with the Goldstone report."

Goldstone was vilified and attacked, his family suffered death threats and he was prevented from attending hi s grandson's bar mitzvah.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
But, I suppose, as long as he retracts his report, that's okay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5629
Rinkals wrote:
But, I suppose, as long as he retracts his report, that's okay.


What part of it was wrong?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
obelixtim wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
But, I suppose, as long as he retracts his report, that's okay.


What part of it was wrong?

Maybe the probability that the death threats and the pressure on his family life made him retract it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33904
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53068
Rinkals wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
But, I suppose, as long as he retracts his report, that's okay.


What part of it was wrong?

Maybe the probability that the death threats and the pressure on his family life made him retract it?



Good times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
Just to put this into context, Goldstone was an highly respected judge who was asked to produce a report on Israel.

After his report, he suffered sustained pressure for him to withdraw his report, including death threats and his banning from attending family functions like the bar mitzvah alluded to in my previous post.

He may have subsequently withdrawn his report, as suggested by Fatprop, but I'm not sure that it's finding can be so easily dismissed. Well, not by most reasonable people, anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16788
Seneca of the Night wrote:
:shock: :shock: :shock:


He could well be right about it being bigger than Watergate - but not in the way he means.

Also, while Andrew McCarthy's comments are interesting, I'd like to hear what Anthony Michael Hall or Jonathan Silverman have to say on the matter before I form a concrete opinion.


Last edited by Jay Cee Gee on Thu May 17, 2018 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
Seneca of the Night wrote:
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Spoiler: show
Image


What on earth do you possibly see in that deranged tweet that would justify the use of three SHOCK emoticons?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16277
Apart from the fact that it is clearly deranged, of course,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:44 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15746
Location: South Oxfordshire
Seneca of the Night wrote:
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Image


Wow, word seems to be coming out that if someone makes something up that might be favourable to me, anti-Obama, or preferably both, I can be relied upon to tweet it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8934
Pitiful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33904
Informants embedded in the campaign. Nothing to see here!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19643
Location: Yemen
"probably no doubt", is that the second oasis album ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33904
Quote:
What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.


:shock: :shock: :shock:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ries-lede/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:03 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16788
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:
What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.


:shock: :shock: :shock:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ries-lede/


Perhaps the fact that the Trump campaign chairman had been the subject of a counterintelligence surveillance for years had something to do with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6994
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:
What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.


:shock: :shock: :shock:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ries-lede/


Perhaps the fact that the Trump campaign chairman had been the subject of a counterintelligence surveillance for years had something to do with that?


Did you read the last paragraph?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9757
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsperry_

Quote:
BREAKING: IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6994
zt1903 wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsperry_

Quote:
BREAKING: IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution


James Jeepers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 1:03 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16788
The most likely subject of any prosecution for that would be one of the leakers, presumably - McCabe perhaps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7109
This is fun

Quote:
WASHINGTON — President Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting on Wednesday, warning in front of news cameras that dangerous people were clamoring to breach the country’s borders and branding such people “animals.”

Mr. Trump’s comments came during a round-table discussion with state and local leaders on California’s so-called sanctuary laws, which strictly limit communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers, and which the Trump administration is suing to invalidate. It was hardly the first time the president has spoken in racially fraught terms about immigrants, but it underscored his anger about unchecked immigration — the animating issue of his campaign and his tenure so far — and his frustration that he has not been able to do more to seal the nation’s borders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/p ... imals.html


and then the context comes out

Quote:
Media outlets take Trump out of context to suggest he called undocumented immigrants 'animals'

Several news organizations took remarks President Donald Trump made Wednesday out of context to suggest he was referring to undocumented immigrants at large as "animals," when in context it appears the President was likely referring to members of a violent gang.
The comment in question happened at a White House roundtable discussion on the subject of immigration and so-called "sanctuary cities." Complaining at the roundtable about confusion between different levels of law enforcement, Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims brought up the violent gang Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13.

"There could be an MS-13 member I know about -- if they don't have a certain threshold, I cannot tell [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] about it," Mims said.

Speaking immediately after Mims, Trump said, "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in -- and we're stopping a lot of them -- but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before."

But several major media outlets stripped the context from Trump's comments, publishing stories and posting tweets that strongly suggested he had said undocumented immigrants at large "aren't people," but "animals." In some cases, outlets that placed the comments in context in stories removed the context in tweets.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/media/m ... index.html


The NY Times "correction" is priceless
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/t ... gangs.html

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6747
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Informants embedded in the campaign. Nothing to see here!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Nothing a quick chat on a runway about grandkids couldn't fix ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10852
So. Let’s recap. A known buffoon calls undocumented immigrants “animals “; gets called out on it and then clarifies that it was a criminal gang of undocumented immigrants that he was actually talking about. I’m sure he meant that all along - it’s not as if he’s talked about immigrants before in such disparaging terms before, is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 44877
Hong Kong wrote:
So. Let’s recap. A known buffoon calls undocumented immigrants “animals “; gets called out on it and then clarifies that it was a criminal gang of undocumented immigrants that he was actually talking about. I’m sure he meant that all along - it’s not as if he’s talked about immigrants before in such disparaging terms before, is it?


ICE is also sending back a lot of people who are no threat whatsoever, along with the MS-13 gang members, so there is some justification for "misinterpreting" the buffoon's words, especially given that he did not specify he was referring to gang members.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19307
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Akkerman wrote:
"probably no doubt", is that the second oasis album ?


Cover band with a trans Gwen Stefani drag act up front...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878 ... 2154  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Biffer29, Bing [Bot], Cartman, charltom, Clint Ruin, comets, dburns1991, Edinburgh01, Google Adsense [Bot], happyhooker, iarmhiman, Jay Cee Gee, Jim Lahey, Laurent, Masterji, Monk Zombie, MungoMan, OB.., Porterbelly1, rett, ruckinhell, Saint, SEAsianExpat, sockwithaticket, swc, TheFrog, The Man Without Fear and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group