SarniaSaint Posted 9 July, 2015 Share Posted 9 July, 2015 Just celebrating your victory. Congratulations. How did you celebrate ???? I don't think you will reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 10 July, 2015 Share Posted 10 July, 2015 #2 - Just because you saw some sensationalized media frenzy reports on brit tv don't think that happens every day cause it dont.............. criminals will still be criminals regardless of skin color ...........but seems to me if your white cant if your black can according to your twisted brit thinking. HTH The reports aren't on 'Brit TV' though, are they ? They are are on US TV, in the US printed media, and as real time videos posted on Youtube. And I'm not sure that it is 'sensationalist' when over 100 bullets are fired at 2 innocent people, ( US media ), not sure it is 'sensationalist' to see a video of a Policeman pistol whipping a teenage girl, or another planting evidence on an innocent man who has just been shot in the back, ( both on Youtube ) ( Mysteriously all 4 'criminals' in these examples were black and the Police white ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 July, 2015 Share Posted 10 July, 2015 How did you celebrate ???? [emoji38] I don't think you will reply [emoji38] Absolutely correct. I will not reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 10 July, 2015 Share Posted 10 July, 2015 The reports aren't on 'Brit TV' though, are they ? They are are on US TV, in the US printed media, and as real time videos posted on Youtube. And I'm not sure that it is 'sensationalist' when over 100 bullets are fired at 2 innocent people, ( US media ), not sure it is 'sensationalist' to see a video of a Policeman pistol whipping a teenage girl, or another planting evidence on an innocent man who has just been shot in the back, ( both on Youtube ) ( Mysteriously all 4 'criminals' in these examples were black and the Police white ). OK ...........so you believe that Youtube showed everything that happened ......the before and during..........I really thought that you were more intelligent than that but hey you believe what you want......... BTW was in Michigan today and guess what.........no violence, no white cops chasing ni...oops blacks .....so I hope that you can understand my opinion OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 10 July, 2015 Share Posted 10 July, 2015 Absolutely correct. I will not reply. you just did .......... go on just a little reply you know you wannna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 11 July, 2015 Share Posted 11 July, 2015 [emoji38] you just did .......... go on just a little reply you know you wannna [emoji38] My apologies. I will not reply to you about this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted 11 July, 2015 Share Posted 11 July, 2015 OK ...........so you believe that Youtube showed everything that happened ......the before and during..........I really thought that you were more intelligent than that but hey you believe what you want......... BTW was in Michigan today and guess what.........no violence, no white cops chasing ni...oops blacks .....so I hope that you can understand my opinion OK So you ARE a racist. Things make more sense now. You'd think that someone of your age could be more mature and actually 'debate' without just going on the defensive every time. And you'd also think someone would have more sense than to make racist comments on a public message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 July, 2015 Share Posted 11 July, 2015 (edited) OK ...........so you believe that Youtube showed everything that happened ......the before and during...... Not at all, but when they are viewed in conjunction with the US media coverage, I think it gives a clear enough picture. What 'before and during' was missed from the video of the cop trying to plant the evidence on the guy shot in the back - would that be the traffic stop ? What 'before and during' would have shown a black schoolgirl inciting a cop to pistol whip her ? Simple question, when you are standing on the bonnet of a car, how many bullets do you need to fire to subdue 2 dead bodies ? Edited 11 July, 2015 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 11 July, 2015 Share Posted 11 July, 2015 My apologies. I will not reply to you about this again. Thank f*ck for that .......you were getting really boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 12 July, 2015 Share Posted 12 July, 2015 So you ARE a racist. Things make more sense now. You'd think that someone of your age could be more mature and actually 'debate' without just going on the defensive every time. And you'd also think someone would have more sense than to make racist comments on a public message board. Hey I gotcha with that ..............and as for debating I have been willing to all the time just that some of you don't want to debate........so you think I am defensive ????...... another illusion unless defensive means answering back HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 12 July, 2015 Share Posted 12 July, 2015 Not at all, but when they are viewed in conjunction with the US media coverage, I think it gives a clear enough picture. What 'before and during' was missed from the video of the cop trying to plant the evidence on the guy shot in the back - would that be the traffic stop ? What 'before and during' would have shown a black schoolgirl inciting a cop to pistol whip her ? Simple question, when you are standing on the bonnet of a car, how many bullets do you need to fire to subdue 2 dead bodies ? WTF is that a hat on a car??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 12 July, 2015 Share Posted 12 July, 2015 I think it is brilliant that a British born Canadian has changed his avatar to the Confederate flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 12 July, 2015 Share Posted 12 July, 2015 WTF is that a hat on a car??? Makes more sense than a 'hood'. Why didn't you answer the question, mister champion debater ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 12 July, 2015 Share Posted 12 July, 2015 I think it is brilliant that a British born Canadian has changed his avatar to the Confederate flag. A British-born Canadian racist scumbag. He's finally come out of the closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 I think it is brilliant that a British born Canadian has changed his avatar to the Confederate flag. just knew that would get you all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Makes more sense than a 'hood'. OK whatever to you maybe Why didn't you answer the question, mister champion debater ? As many as it takes OK precious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 A British-born Canadian racist scumbag. He's finally come out of the closet. gone fishing and got a few bites ........... scumbag???? you are f*cking clueless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 OK precious Just for you sweetie, an English dictionary definition for 'hood' : "The hinged metal canopy covering the engine of a motor vehicle." As for 'as many as it takes', I am in awe of the quality of your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 [emoji38] gone fishing and got a few bites [emoji38]........... scumbag???? you are f*cking clueless [emoji38] just knew that would get you all [emoji38] OK precious When it comes to "rational debate", you are without question the winner and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Sarnia is obviously a complete fruit cake but at least he has confirmed what I originally thought. When the Yanks say they can't ban guns because the bad guys will keep them, they mean black guys. I guess it's understandable though for a country formed by killing the natives with guns then built up by enslaving black people using guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Sarnia is obviously a complete fruit cake but at least he has confirmed what I originally thought. When the Yanks say they can't ban guns because the bad guys will keep them, they mean black guys. I guess it's understandable though for a country formed by killing the natives with guns then built up by enslaving black people using guns. That's the case now more than ever. The Second Amendment is a white rights issue in the US. It is as repulsive in its enactment and interpretation as was the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which stipulated that slaves were 3/5th human. The NRA is completely dominated by whites, and uses the language of the slave-South to advance its cause, hollering about the 'threats' of the 'bad guys' (code for: black guys). It was depressingly familiar, then, to hear Dylann Roof, the cretinous murdered of black churchgoers in Charleston, use exactly the language of the NRA - and the KKK - is justifying his actions. He was defending (whom?) against 'violent' black people who threatened his existence. 'Negroes,' he said, 'have lower IQs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals [sic]. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behaviour.' By the NRA's definition, Roof, before these murders, would have been one of the 'good guys' - and the NRA would have defended to the last white man Roof's right to carry his murder weapon - locked and loaded. Note, incidentally, that Roof says all the above while picturing himself wrapped in the confederate flag. The same confederate flag that our resident racist scumbag used as his avatar - finding it a giggle, yet again, to revel in the murders of black people in general. I've never called for the banning of anyone on this site. But I'd welcome the banning of the sick individual posting as Sarnia Saint. Using the white-supremacist confederate flag - which has become the symbol cloaking the racist murder of innocent black churchgoers - is about as perverted as you could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 (edited) That's the case now more than ever. The Second Amendment is a white rights issue in the US. It is as repulsive in its enactment and interpretation as was the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which stipulated that slaves were 3/5th human. The NRA is completely dominated by whites, and uses the language of the slave-South to advance its cause, hollering about the 'threats' of the 'bad guys' (code for: black guys). It was depressingly familiar, then, to hear Dylann Roof, the cretinous murdered of black churchgoers in Charleston, use exactly the language of the NRA - and the KKK - is justifying his actions. He was defending (whom?) against 'violent' black people who threatened his existence. 'Negroes,' he said, 'have lower IQs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals [sic]. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behaviour.' By the NRA's definition, Roof, before these murders, would have been one of the 'good guys' - and the NRA would have defended to the last white man Roof's right to carry his murder weapon - locked and loaded. Note, incidentally, that Roof says all the above while picturing himself wrapped in the confederate flag. The same confederate flag that our resident racist scumbag used as his avatar - finding it a giggle, yet again, to revel in the murders of black people in general. I've never called for the banning of anyone on this site. But I'd welcome the banning of the sick individual posting as Sarnia Saint. Using the white-supremacist confederate flag - which has become the symbol cloaking the racist murder of innocent black churchgoers - is about as perverted as you could get. It's a flag. Would you ban someone who used a Union Jack because members of the National Front used it as a symbol. Edited 13 July, 2015 by Whitey Grandad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 It's a flag. Would you ban someone who used a Union Jack because members of the National Front used it as a symbol. Not a fair comparison. The confederate flag, like the swastika, is freighted with specific connotations. There is just no getting around the fact that it came to represent a predominantly southern, reactionary, "good ol' boy" attitude which supported segregation and white supremacy - regardless of the additional anti-Yankee sentiment (a clear residue of post-Civil War resentment). That dominant aura of discrimination and racist hatred explains, as I see it, why Sarnia Saint removed the flag as his avatar so quickly. A step too far - even for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 It's a flag. Would you ban someone who used a Union Jack because members of the National Front used it as a symbol. Are you being serious? It's hard to credit that anyone would need help in understanding what the confederate flag means. The confederate flag is, not entirely surprisingly, the flag of the confederacy, two of whose central purposes were, according to the Mississippi declaration of secession, to promote white supremacy and preserve slavery. Under this flag, the confederacy's cornerstone "rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition." After the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling by the US supreme court, which outlawed segregated education in the former slave states, white-supremacist southerners used the confederate flag to intimidate civil rights activists. White gangs carried the confederate flag when they threw rocks at the University of Alabama's first black student Autherine Lucy. And mobs 'protecting' segregationist schools wore confederate flags in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Birmingham and Austin, Texas. South Carolina itself, where the murder of black churchgoers took place, has been the epicentre of a campaign by black state residents since 1972, on the grounds that it remains a powerful symbol of white supremacy and violent intimidation of blacks. It is a flag of anti-black terrorism - just as ugly as the Nazi swastika and a far more enduring a symbol of hate. Dylann Roof was not the first to drape himself in it to consecrate his crimes and he won't be the last. And that's the flag that Sarnia Saint was gigglingly waving the other day. Aside from anything else, what he did is explicitly against the rules of this site - and it should not be tolerated. I don't want that ****wit coming back her after the next murder of a black person and smirking at the number of bullets he or she has had to take in order to give Sarnia his jollies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Are you being serious? It's hard to credit that anyone would need help in understanding what the confederate flag means. The confederate flag is, not entirely surprisingly, the flag of the confederacy, two of whose central purposes were, according to the Mississippi declaration of secession, to promote white supremacy and preserve slavery. Under this flag, the confederacy's cornerstone "rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition." After the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling by the US supreme court, which outlawed segregated education in the former slave states, white-supremacist southerners used the confederate flag to intimidate civil rights activists. White gangs carried the confederate flag when they threw rocks at the University of Alabama's first black student Autherine Lucy. And mobs 'protecting' segregationist schools wore confederate flags in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Birmingham and Austin, Texas. South Carolina itself, where the murder of black churchgoers took place, has been the epicentre of a campaign by black state residents since 1972, on the grounds that it remains a powerful symbol of white supremacy and violent intimidation of blacks. It is a flag of anti-black terrorism - just as ugly as the Nazi swastika and a far more enduring a symbol of hate. Dylann Roof was not the first to drape himself in it to consecrate his crimes and he won't be the last. And that's the flag that Sarnia Saint was gigglingly waving the other day. Aside from anything else, what he did is explicitly against the rules of this site - and it should not be tolerated. I don't want that ****wit coming back her after the next murder of a black person and smirking at the number of bullets he or she has had to take in order to give Sarnia his jollies. There was a lot more to it than that. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-confederate-flag-racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Just for you sweetie, an English dictionary definition for 'hood' : "The hinged metal canopy covering the engine of a motor vehicle." As for 'as many as it takes', I am in awe of the quality of your argument. 'Hood' also means other things like slang for the neighborhood or a criminal....that not be in your English dictionary.......a bonnet is a hat HTH As for the facetious answer I gave to how many bullets........how many would be acceptable to you ??? Your Sweetie from Sarnia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 When it comes to "rational debate", you are without question the winner and everything. Want a rational debate?? go ahead I am willing to....... but I don't think you do...........you don't like it when someone has something else to say that you cant argue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Sarnia is obviously a complete fruit cake but at least he has confirmed what I originally thought. When the Yanks say they can't ban guns because the bad guys will keep them, they mean black guys. I guess it's understandable though for a country formed by killing the natives with guns then built up by enslaving black people using guns. get your history correct before coming out with crap like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 That's the case now more than ever. The Second Amendment is a white rights issue in the US. It is as repulsive in its enactment and interpretation as was the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which stipulated that slaves were 3/5th human. The NRA is completely dominated by whites, and uses the language of the slave-South to advance its cause, hollering about the 'threats' of the 'bad guys' (code for: black guys). It was depressingly familiar, then, to hear Dylann Roof, the cretinous murdered of black churchgoers in Charleston, use exactly the language of the NRA - and the KKK - is justifying his actions. He was defending (whom?) against 'violent' black people who threatened his existence. 'Negroes,' he said, 'have lower IQs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals [sic]. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behaviour.' By the NRA's definition, Roof, before these murders, would have been one of the 'good guys' - and the NRA would have defended to the last white man Roof's right to carry his murder weapon - locked and loaded. Note, incidentally, that Roof says all the above while picturing himself wrapped in the confederate flag. The same confederate flag that our resident racist scumbag used as his avatar - finding it a giggle, yet again, to revel in the murders of black people in general. I've never called for the banning of anyone on this site. But I'd welcome the banning of the sick individual posting as Sarnia Saint. Using the white-supremacist confederate flag - which has become the symbol cloaking the racist murder of innocent black churchgoers - is about as perverted as you could get. Get that froth off your mouth ........as rants go that was good a 7/10........the only ones who have brought the black/white dialog into the debate are you brit wimps ...........HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 It's a flag. Would you ban someone who used a Union Jack because members of the National Front used it as a symbol. Yes it is just the flag of the North Virginia Confederate Army not even the flag of the Confederate States..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Not a fair comparison. The confederate flag, like the swastika, is freighted with specific connotations. There is just no getting around the fact that it came to represent a predominantly southern, reactionary, "good ol' boy" attitude which supported segregation and white supremacy - regardless of the additional anti-Yankee sentiment (a clear residue of post-Civil War resentment). That dominant aura of discrimination and racist hatred explains, as I see it, why Sarnia Saint removed the flag as his avatar so quickly. A step too far - even for him. Not a step too far more like poking a stick in a hornets nest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 13 July, 2015 Share Posted 13 July, 2015 Are you being serious? It's hard to credit that anyone would need help in understanding what the confederate flag means. The confederate flag is, not entirely surprisingly, the flag of the confederacy, two of whose central purposes were, according to the Mississippi declaration of secession, to promote white supremacy and preserve slavery. Under this flag, the confederacy's cornerstone "rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition." After the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling by the US supreme court, which outlawed segregated education in the former slave states, white-supremacist southerners used the confederate flag to intimidate civil rights activists. White gangs carried the confederate flag when they threw rocks at the University of Alabama's first black student Autherine Lucy. And mobs 'protecting' segregationist schools wore confederate flags in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Birmingham and Austin, Texas. South Carolina itself, where the murder of black churchgoers took place, has been the epicentre of a campaign by black state residents since 1972, on the grounds that it remains a powerful symbol of white supremacy and violent intimidation of blacks. It is a flag of anti-black terrorism - just as ugly as the Nazi swastika and a far more enduring a symbol of hate. Dylann Roof was not the first to drape himself in it to consecrate his crimes and he won't be the last. And that's the flag that Sarnia Saint was gigglingly waving the other day. Aside from anything else, what he did is explicitly against the rules of this site - and it should not be tolerated. I don't want that ****wit coming back her after the next murder of a black person and smirking at the number of bullets he or she has had to take in order to give Sarnia his jollies. So No Free Speech allowed in your world EH............you are a f*cking Nazi so just froth at the mouth on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 Are you being serious? It's hard to credit that anyone would need help in understanding what the confederate flag means. The confederate flag is, not entirely surprisingly, the flag of the confederacy, two of whose central purposes were, according to the Mississippi declaration of secession, to promote white supremacy and preserve slavery. Under this flag, the confederacy's cornerstone "rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition." After the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling by the US supreme court, which outlawed segregated education in the former slave states, white-supremacist southerners used the confederate flag to intimidate civil rights activists. White gangs carried the confederate flag when they threw rocks at the University of Alabama's first black student Autherine Lucy. And mobs 'protecting' segregationist schools wore confederate flags in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Birmingham and Austin, Texas. South Carolina itself, where the murder of black churchgoers took place, has been the epicentre of a campaign by black state residents since 1972, on the grounds that it remains a powerful symbol of white supremacy and violent intimidation of blacks. It is a flag of anti-black terrorism - just as ugly as the Nazi swastika and a far more enduring a symbol of hate. Dylann Roof was not the first to drape himself in it to consecrate his crimes and he won't be the last. And that's the flag that Sarnia Saint was gigglingly waving the other day. Aside from anything else, what he did is explicitly against the rules of this site - and it should not be tolerated. I don't want that ****wit coming back her after the next murder of a black person and smirking at the number of bullets he or she has had to take in order to give Sarnia his jollies. It is strange how suddenly the Confederate flag is seen to be symbol of race hate when it has been acceptable for so long. Feels like something easy for the excitable to vent their righteous indignation towards all of a sudden - wanyama had to make an apology for his T shirt is just ridiculous example of how these things escalate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 I've never called for the banning of anyone on this site. But I'd welcome the banning of the sick individual posting as Sarnia Saint. Using the white-supremacist confederate flag - which has become the symbol cloaking the racist murder of innocent black churchgoers - is about as perverted as you could get. FFS you are getting a bit over the top. Are you also campaigning for Dukes Of Hazard never to be allowed to air again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 Rational debate; [emoji38] just knew that would get you all [emoji38] Rational debate: OK precious Rational debate: [emoji38] gone fishing and got a few bites [emoji38]........... scumbag???? you are f*cking clueless Rational debate: 'Hood' also means other things like slang for the neighborhood or a criminal....that not be in your English dictionary.......a bonnet is a hat HTH As for the facetious answer I gave to how many bullets........how many would be acceptable to you ??? Your Sweetie from Sarnia Rational debate: get your history correct before coming out with crap like that. Rational debate: Get that froth off your mouth ........as rants go that was good a 7/10........the only ones who have brought the black/white dialog into the debate are you brit wimps ...........HTH Rational debate: Not a step too far more like poking a stick in a hornets nest Rational debate: So No Free Speech allowed in your world EH............you are a f*cking Nazi so just froth at the mouth on that [emoji38] Want a rational debate?? go ahead I am willing to....... but I don't think you do...........you don't like it when someone has something else to say that you cant argue with. I think you may have missed the multiple times where I have said I have no interest in having a rational debate with you. You keep saying you want to have one with everyone but your behaviour suggests otherwise. And despite replying to me every single day, you still haven't noticed I am not arguing with you about anything. So you do indeed say things "people can't argue with" but that's because you mainly write barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel. So if it's okay with you I will continue to not argue with you, and continue simply enjoying your breathtaking ability to debate rationally. Make no mistake, you is the winner at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 FFS you are getting a bit over the top. Are you also campaigning for Dukes Of Hazard never to be allowed to air again? LOL ........no Daisy Dukes in his world :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 Rational debate; Rational debate: Rational debate: Rational debate: Rational debate: Rational debate: Rational debate: Rational debate: I think you may have missed the multiple times where I have said I have no interest in having a rational debate with you. You keep saying you want to have one with everyone but your behaviour suggests otherwise. And despite replying to me every single day, you still haven't noticed I am not arguing with you about anything. So you do indeed say things "people can't argue with" but that's because you mainly write barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel. So if it's okay with you I will continue to not argue with you, and continue simply enjoying your breathtaking ability to debate rationally. Make no mistake, you is the winner at that. So anything that you don't want to argue about is drivel??? well in that case you must think that what gets you lot upset is drivel....thanks for confirming ...........bye (wavey thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 14 July, 2015 Share Posted 14 July, 2015 Sarnia, go to bed mate. All you've just done is confirm what CB Fry said, you're making yourself look a complete co ck, again. Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 July, 2015 Share Posted 15 July, 2015 So anything that you don't want to argue about is drivel??? well in that case you must think that what gets you lot upset is drivel....thanks for confirming ...........bye (wavey thing) Thanks for providing the dictionary definition of "barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel" in one handy post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 15 July, 2015 Share Posted 15 July, 2015 Can we start another thread on this topic and rename this thread 'lots of people fighting'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Thanks for providing the dictionary definition of "barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel" in one handy post. Ohh!! so this is your latest pathetic attempt to show how think you are so clever ............and you call me "a f*cking moron"......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Can we start another thread on this topic and rename this thread 'lots of people fighting'? "Lotsa people fighting against one"......might be better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Sarnia, go to bed mate. All you've just done is confirm what CB Fry said, you're making yourself look a complete co ck, again. Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk You really think that ??? you brits are such dumb f*cks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 For Whelk http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ek5O2C3F5aY/TN3K0g3eoiI/AAAAAAAAA5I/KJuIRNc6P9U/s1600/catherine-bach-001.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel: Ohh!! so this is your latest pathetic attempt to show how think you are so clever [emoji38]............and you call me "a f*cking moron"......... Rational debate: You really think that ??? you brits are such dumb f*cks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Bringing it back on topic, if you do get out of the car, don't go stealing bikes..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33545655 ....ohh, they didn't steal the bikes.....! How many times did the officers shoot this highly dangerous robber, err citizen? Feel free to justify, the use of guns, policing policy or whatever else you can drum up, but would you not at least concede that America has a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Bringing it back on topic, if you do get out of the car, don't go stealing bikes..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33545655 ....ohh, they didn't steal the bikes.....! How many times did the officers shoot this highly dangerous robber, err citizen? Feel free to justify, the use of guns, policing policy or whatever else you can drum up, but would you not at least concede that America has a problem? But he was obviously about to assault the officers with his hat, so they had to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Methinks the ONLY circumstances when it is acceptable for the police to use lethal force is when they can observe a suspect with a lethal weapon actually in his/her hands. It is not justifiable to shoot somebody because they are attempting to avoid arrest, neither is a failure to comply with police instructions - such as raising your hands - grounds for deadly force I think. Number of people killed by police in the UK since 1900 = 52 Number of people killed by police in the US during March 2015 = 111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Methinks the ONLY circumstances when it is acceptable for the police to use lethal force is when they can observe a suspect with a lethal weapon actually in his/her hands. It is not justifiable to shoot somebody because they are attempting to avoid arrest, neither is a failure to comply with police instructions - such as raising your hands - grounds for deadly force I think. Number of people killed by police in the UK since 1900 = 52 Number of people killed by police in the US during March 2015 = 111 Yet another person trying to use facts, who fails to understand the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 July, 2015 Share Posted 16 July, 2015 Barely literate ham-fisted troll drivel: Rational debate: Don't you remember you aint debating with me ........but cant stay away can you. Make up your mind....do you want to debate with me or not ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now