4 minutes ago, Masterton said:

Oh well that makes it okay then.... ????

No. It makes it a misdemeanor and not a serious crime. Certainly not something to get your panties in a bunch over.

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

No. It makes it a misdemeanor and not a serious crime. Certainly not something to get your panties in a bunch over.

 

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Why should any crime be acceptable? And who gets to determine what constitutes the difference between a misdemeanor and a serious crime? And what happens when what YOU determine to be a serious crime then gets legislated by politicians with an agenda to be reclassified as a misdemeanor?? Look at the mess New York is now compared to when Guliani was mayor. He implemented what was referred to as the "broken windows" theory which resulted in a massive decrease in crime across the board. The guy that stole your "stuff" might murder you next time. Is that worth "getting your panties in a bunch over" ?

4 minutes ago, Masterton said:

And who gets to determine what constitutes the difference between a misdemeanor and a serious crime?

If you don't know then there is really no reason to continue.

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

If you don't know then there is really no reason to continue.

 

Sigh. It was a rhetorical question, the point being that you and I don't get to make those choices. It is usually done by politicians with nefarious agendas. Do try to keep up. Nice deflection though. 

2 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

Sigh. It was a rhetorical question, the point being that you and I don't get to make those choices. It is usually done by politicians with nefarious agendas. Do try to keep up. Nice deflection though. 

It wasn't a deflection. Your post was one of the least tethered to reality that I have read. I see no common ground to continue the discussion.

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Again what are your recommended media sources? If you refuse to provide so be it, leave it at that. Please don't reply with another rant, silence is fine.

 

Asked and answered. Moving on.

 

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

It wasn't a deflection. Your post was one of the least tethered to reality that I have read. I see no common ground to continue the discussion.

 

Yes it most certainly was a deflection. You justified crime on the basis that it was now considered a misdemeanor and then avoided responding to the very valid points that I raised concerning the potential of future crimes being downgraded and previous criminals committing more serious offences later. Stating something that you either disagree with or don't understand as not being "tethered to reality" doesn't make them so, nor does it "win" you the argument. I am more than willing to not continue the discussion with you as it is completely pointless. Carry on.

8 minutes ago, Masterton said:

Asked and answered. Moving on.

OK you're refusing to name your media sources. Agree - moving along

Trump still thinks that this tough law and order talk works. It does not. Most know he is anything but tough. And it is simply political rhetoric, meant to fire up his base. But, since his base is shrinking, it simply makes him look tone deaf, ineffective and out of touch. He is a relic. 

 

Good on Twitter for restricting the hateful nonsense. This election is going to be fun. Watching Trump lose by 8-10 million votes and then unceremoniously ushered out of DC, in a humiliating fashion, while whining and crying the whole time, and complaining about a rigged election, will bring joy to many. And he will return to an empire in tatters, with a radioactive name nobody will want to touch. He has rightfully earned all of that. 

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump still thinks that this tough law and order talk works. It does not. Most know he is anything but tough. And it is simply political rhetoric, meant to fire up his base. But, since his base is shrinking, it simply makes him look tone deaf, ineffective and out of touch. He is a relic. 

You would have posted the same, even if his support had increased 10 fold.

I predict him winning the next election, lets remember that, then one of us can claim 'told you so' rights after.

4 hours ago, Masterton said:

You are once again missing the point. Reuters may be "recognised globally" but they are anything but a credible news source. If you can't see the anti Trump bias and the propagating of lies in their stories, then perhaps you should've gone to Specsavers. It is rather telling that you accuse them of "not towing the line for right of centre propaganda" (whatever that is supposed to be...) but you are totally oblivious to the fact that they are towing the Democrat party line. Bizarre.

Reuters are the same in Europe, recognised as a totally Globalist left wing organisation.

Brexit will never happen was their line.

Edited June 25, 20206 yr by BritManToo

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Reuters are the same in Europe, recognised as a totally Globalist left wing organisation.

Brexit will never happen was their line.

Thanks for the unconfirmable factoid.

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Reuters are the same in Europe, recognised as a totally Globalist left wing organisation.

Brexit will never happen was their line.

Oh dear, a "Globalist left wing organisation". Surely you can add to this paranoid fantasy about the MSM being dominated by the left. How about gender bending, lefty, wimpy, truth hating, Marxists, for a start.

 

On the other hand consider that almost all the main UK Newspapers are owned by billionaires, hardly famous for their decency or concern for their fellow man. The BBC is run by Tory place people, the most recent Director General is a former Tory candidate. I don't see things being much different in the US.  

Edited June 25, 20206 yr by Nigel Garvie

3 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Oh dear, a "Globalist left wing organisation". Surely you can add to this paranoid fantasy about the MSM being dominated by the left. How about gender bending, lefty, wimpy, truth hating, Marxists, for a start.

You forgot to include BLM ....... are you a racist?

49 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You forgot to include BLM ....... are you a racist?

Are you a troll?

Abraham Lincoln is the latest name on the hit list of statues.

 

Kum Bah Yah America...

Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube will keep suppressing alternative channels--in other words, anything vaguely critical of progressivism-- until they are forced to stop. That means removing their protected utility status. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim immunity from civil liability as a public utility and then lord over the channels like a freaking pontificate. They need to decide what they want to be. Make no mistake, if the political bias swung the opposite way, the Left would be screaming for new legislation.

19 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube will keep suppressing alternative channels--in other words, anything vaguely critical of progressivism-- until they are forced to stop. That means removing their protected utility status. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim immunity from civil liability as a public utility and then lord over the channels like a freaking pontificate. They need to decide what they want to be. Make no mistake, if the political bias swung the opposite way, the Left would be screaming for new legislation.

What has been suppressed, exactly?

Some off topic troll and inflammatory posts removed also replies