2009

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I at least am careful to always provide a link to any new claim which I consider might be even remotely contentious. It's called being respectful and wishing to debate in good faith. You might also respect that moddies are constantly removing off topic posts. (like yours and this reply).

I reckon you just try to flag people's comments to have them removed. (Like you are doing now).

You must get some kind of pleasure from it. Or maybe it's your strategy in a discussion.

I got a 9 day suspension for not posting a link recently while discussing something with you. Lol.

Well done ???? ????

1 hour ago, proton said:

Just another pathetic attempt to shoehorn blacks into a history which does not belong to them

Exactly, they are trying to win points with the black community and the woke community.

They probably figured they'd get more views that way too

5 minutes ago, proton said:

As expected, why don't you look something up for yourself for a change and stop expecting posters to do it for you.

Exactly ????

"Link please" and "Off topic" are his two favorite lines.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Because her race is completely irrelevant to her life, so much so that her actual race is the subject of speculation. Are you suggesting that black actors should be confined to roles portraying known black people and white actors should be confined to portraying white people?

 

Pandering to the black community? You have an unhealthy preoccupation with race issues.

Of course, her race is relevant to her life.  She was a ruler of Egypt. And she was of Greek heritage.

Heritage matters when you are the ruler of a country, in case you didn't know.

Just like Queen Charlotte wasn't black, yet Netflix cast her as black.

Would we be having this conversation if an emperor of China was depicted as caucasian?

It isn't racist to say that it's dumb to cast the Queen of England as black, when she obviously wasn't.

You can't play the racist card all the time.

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

It's called artistic licence.  They weren't making a documentary ????

Until I see them cast a white person to play a black historical figure, I'll call it pandering.

But we all know that won't happen.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You really can't grasp that for some people, their entire lives and fame is about their race but not for others and that in those cases it's just incidental and therefore no impediment to casting as any color or race?

Can't you see they are just pandering to the black community?

How can you make a show about a historical figure and change her race?

Might as well change her gender, nationality, and every else

They should be sued as well for making Queen Charlotte black, lol

It's a joke, isn't it?

Let's see a white Nelson Mandela, lol.   

Or a Chinese Obama.

50 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From the landing page of the World News Forum

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

You've got nothing.

Ah yes.

The favorite comment when you've got nothing else to say.

It's a "go to" strategy for some around here.

2 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

I assume the right wing gun nuts...

The way the left has gone, I don't think you have the right to call conservatives "nuts" ????

The liberals have gone bananas. ????

I used to be a lefty, but now I'd be ashamed to identify with that group.

On 4/21/2023 at 4:36 PM, BritManToo said:

To be fair, If a large thuggish looking guy was trying my front door in an attempt to enter my home, I might shoot first and ask questions later as well. Especially if it were after dark and in a gang problem area of town.

 

Obviously that wouldn't be the case in a car park (cheerleaders), or a child knocking a ball into my garden.

Exactly, a young man was trying to enter his property.

The feeble old man defended his property.

Yet the media painted him as a racist just cos he happened to be white and the other guy happened be black.

But when blacks kill whites, it isn't portrayed as racism by the media.

12 minutes ago, Pmbkk said:

 

What, by endangering someone's life by driving off at  very high speed with someone you hit initially hanging onto your bonnet.

 

A little slip - could have very easily have ended in murder..

 

Should be seen as such...

 

 

I dunno. I'll leave that to the lawyers.

They guy hanging onto his bonnet was playing sillybuggers. It was not the accident in progress. The accident was a separate event.

It looked like they were trying to get into the locked vehicle or trying to get the driver out.

If either of which had transpired, the driver could have been on the receiving end of a violent gang attack, so he/she fled to safety. Fair enough.

I don't think the motorcycle drivers had any right to do that to someone after an accident. They should let the police handle the matter.

To be fair, at the point at which he drove away I don't think it could legally be considered a hit n run.

The accident had happened. The driver didn't flee. No hit n run.

The motorbike guy was laying on his bonnet intentionally. I dunno what you would call that legally (besides dumb).

All the other guys were gathering around, some angry. I think some trying to force the driver out of the car or to get into the locked vehicle. This is probably illegal.

The driver was intimidated by their actions and drove off.

At this point, I don't think it's a hit n run. So long as the driver went straight to the police as per the law, I reckon no charges besides careless driving for the initial accident (if the initial accident was even the car driver's fault)

They tried to take the law into their own hands and messed up.