The double taxation argument is silly. After all, the same argument could be applied to VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty etc.

Nigel Fartarse appears on Alex Jones Infowars. Alex Jones is the man who denies the Sandy Hook massacred children existed and is facing lawsuits from their parents for defamation. The more time goes by, the more the Hitler story makes more and more sense from the far-right riffraff public school Hitler-baiting hate-spreading lying nonce. Even his German wife has had enough of him....

 

Farage has no morals or scruples, just nastiness to spread.

Meanwhile Sean hannity, another Breitbarting-style Fox News fake news spreader has been found to be a lying hypocrite as he claims his lawyer, now under FBI investigation, was never paid and just advised him for free. Him and Donald Trump. The lawyer who somehow found 130,000 dollars to shut up a scandal with a porn actress, despite not getting paid by one of his non-clients it seems. What a generous man that lawyer is, working for free for very rich men who subsequently defended him on national news TV without ever mentioning that he occasionally "advised" Hannity for "free" about stuff which didn't concern other people. As some wag pointed out - all legal advice concerns other people or you wouldn't need it.

 

It's amazing how virtually everyone involved with the Trump campaign and Presidency turns out to be corrupt or hypocritical in some way. Who coulda guessed that!?

Black Hero tackles white AR-15 murderer from Illinois in Waffle House in Tennessee, gets shot in the arm for his troubles but likely saves further deaths by removing his gun.

 

Moral: murderers without guns don't kill people. Murderers with guns kill people.

 

Moral: Black men without guns can still tackle white nutters with guns and all the headlines will still be about the shooter being nude rather than the hero risking his life to stop him.

 

No motive is known. Let me guess: loner who follows right-wing media on the internet, has never had a girlfriend, idolises guns, has no friends but is an NRA groupie......

 

I could of course be completely wrong and he's a well-adjusted married men who loves the world and everybody in it.

 

 

Moral: murderers without guns don't kill people. Murderers with guns kill people.

 

Technically, if you haven't killed anyone, then you cannot be a murderer. :teresa:

 

[Well, you seem to have the Sarcasm title pretty much wrapped up, so I have to concentrate on cynicism & pedantry instead ;) ]

Technically, if you haven't killed anyone, then you cannot be a murderer. :teresa:

 

[Well, you seem to have the Sarcasm title pretty much wrapped up, so I have to concentrate on cynicism & pedantry instead ;) ]

 

or....

 

what I say is so true that you have no response to it so resort to saying nothing.

 

That man murdered 4 people with a gun. The gun was removed and he murdered no further people. He was by that point a full-blown murderer. You can still be a murderer who hasnt been caught and if you have no guns it restricts further murderers.

 

Pedant winner here.

 

PS There was no sarcasm in that post of mine, I meant every word.

 

PPS Still giving the appearance of supporting something unsupportable by resorting to needless comments. Say nothing on serious issues if you have nothing to add.

or....

 

what I say is so true that you have no response to it so resort to saying nothing.

 

OK

 

 

PS There was no sarcasm in that post of mine, I meant every word.

I wasn't specifically referring to your last post.

 

PPS Still giving the appearance of supporting something unsupportable by resorting to needless comments. Say nothing on serious issues if you have nothing to add.

 

I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.

 

I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.

 

4 people dead and the best you can do is nitpick on the correct use of "murderer". I don't need to make any comments or assumptions.

4 people dead and the best you can do is nitpick on the correct use of "murderer". I don't need to make any comments or assumptions.

 

Am I supposed to go into mourning for all the hundreds of people who are murdered every day? :huh:

 

Of course the deaths of the 4 you mentioned are regrettable, but saying so won't bring them back. :mellow:

Am I supposed to go into mourning for all the hundreds of people who are murdered every day? :huh:

 

Of course the deaths of the 4 you mentioned are regrettable, but saying so won't bring them back. :mellow:

 

Fairly clearly you have no concept of scale. "regrettable" is something you use for making an insensitive comment in an inappropriate situation. The correct term is "tragic".

 

FYI.

Fairly clearly you have no concept of scale. "regrettable" is something you use for making an insensitive comment in an inappropriate situation. The correct term is "tragic".

 

FYI.

 

Oh come on - even when I *do* express sympathy, you throw it back at me! :???:

 

I guess that means you reject the truce offer I made earlier 'I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.'?

Edited April 23, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Technically, if you haven't killed anyone, then you cannot be a murderer. :teresa:

 

[Well, you seem to have the Sarcasm title pretty much wrapped up, so I have to concentrate on cynicism & pedantry instead ;) ]

Have you never heard of the law of common purpose? Under that law it is possible fore someone to be convicted of a brutal murder without being anywhere near the murder scene at the time.

Have you never heard of the law of common purpose? Under that law it is possible fore someone to be convicted of a brutal murder without being anywhere near the murder scene at the time.

 

I've not heard it called that, but I am familiar with the notion.

Oh come on - even when I *do* express sympathy, you throw it back at me! :???:

 

I guess that means you reject the truce offer I made earlier 'I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.'?

 

Oh please, just read your own words back to yourself, you come across as callous:

 

"Am I supposed to go into mourning for all the hundreds of people who are murdered every day? "

 

(No, you just condemn it and express sympathy if commenting on it)

 

"Of course the deaths of the 4 you mentioned are regrettable, but saying so won't bring them back"

 

(oh that's all right then if they are dead and stay dead and their families don't get to read what you comment on and the manner in which you do it. Sadly we do and you keep using the "excuse" that you dont know how to express sympathy. Clearly true. Try going on a writers course and learn how to actually express your feelings, assuming your sentences above aren't a true reflection of your feelings. I've been on a writers course, I seem to do OK out of it)

 

FYI sorry but I dont give a toss about a "truce" with anyone anywhere in the world (not just you). If I see something that needs a comment I say it, right then and there off the top of my head, I'm not going to let it pass, and that includes friends, family and colleagues. The 4 young black kids that were murdered were murdered by an out-of-state white man on a shoot n run. I'm assuming he was racist in the absence of any other evidence which is, of course, a pass-time of many white racist nutters in the US, only they dont get called gun-obsessed terrorists they get called "lone wolves". For lone-wolves there seems to be shitloads of the evil SOB's in a never-ending series of gun-toting mass murders.

 

 

 

 

(oh that's all right then if they are dead and stay dead and their families don't get to read what you comment on and the manner in which you do it. Sadly we do and you keep using the "excuse" that you dont know how to express sympathy. Clearly true. Try going on a writers course and learn how to actually express your feelings, assuming your sentences above aren't a true reflection of your feelings. I've been on a writers course, I seem to do OK out of it)

 

The idea of guys expressing their feelings was not regarded as being a positive thing at the time I went to school - it tended to make you a target for bullying.

 

FYI sorry but I dont give a toss about a "truce" with anyone anywhere in the world (not just you). If I see something that needs a comment I say it, right then and there off the top of my head.

 

Then surely you can see that I tend to do the same thing - yet when I do it, it's somehow a negative thing?

The idea of guys expressing their feelings was not regarded as being a positive thing at the time I went to school - it tended to make you a target for bullying.

Then surely you can see that I tend to do the same thing - yet when I do it, it's somehow a negative thing?

 

1. Yes it was the UK male macho crap thing. That doesnt however mean one doesnt have feelings or that one shouldnt learn to express them. It's healthy.

 

2. No, when I do it it's to defend the rights and sensitivities of others and argue against injustice, not to ignore those issues either intentionally or unintentionally. This is a publicly published document, and the murdered and their families should be treated with respect and sympathy. I have tact, usually. If I don't and I slip I apologise and admit I was wrong or phrased something badly. It's not difficult to say sorry...

 

Sorry about that....

 

 

1. Yes it was the UK male macho crap thing. That doesnt however mean one doesnt have feelings or that one shouldnt learn to express them. It's healthy.

 

2. No, when I do it it's to defend the rights and sensitivities of others and argue against injustice, not to ignore those issues either intentionally or unintentionally. This is a publicly published document, and the murdered and their families should be treated with respect and sympathy. I have tact, usually. If I don't and I slip I apologise and admit I was wrong or phrased something badly. It's not difficult to say sorry...

 

Sorry about that....

 

1. Psychologically healthy, you mean? Certainly not physically, if it makes you a target...

 

2. I certainly don't ignore injustices, in fact they are one of the things that enrage me most!

 

The thing I do that upsets people here most seems to be unwisely constructed analogies - having a relatively thick skin myself, I sometimes forget that others are far more sensitive.

1. Psychologically healthy, you mean? Certainly not physically, if it makes you a target...

 

2. I certainly don't ignore injustices, in fact they are one of the things that enrage me most!

 

The thing I do that upsets people here most seems to be unwisely constructed analogies - having a relatively thick skin myself, I sometimes forget that others are far more sensitive.

 

1. Times have changed..

 

2. What you see as injustice is usually not what I view as injustice, given the amount of times you support the status quo that allows injustices to carry on, or make worse. Theory over reality. People's, and the planet's, well-being matters more than anything else.

 

You have a thick skin? Have you seen a dermatologist?

1. Times have changed..

 

2. What you see as injustice is usually not what I view as injustice, given the amount of times you support the status quo that allows injustices to carry on, or make worse. Theory over reality. People's, and the planet's, well-being matters more than anything else.

 

You have a thick skin? Have you seen a dermatologist?

 

1. I doubt school bullies have - they always go after someone who stands out from the crowd, for whatever reason.

 

2. Which of the below is the closest to your definition of injustice, then?

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/injustice

 

a. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.

b. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.

c. an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

 

3. Very droll.

1. I doubt school bullies have - they always go after someone who stands out from the crowd, for whatever reason.

 

2. Which of the below is the closest to your definition of injustice, then?

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/injustice

 

a. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.

b. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.

c. an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

 

3. Very droll.

 

1. Let's ask people recently at school shall we, and give our fading 45 year-old memories a rest?

 

2. I believe I said what I meant quite clearly.

 

3. I thought so, but then I DO love my own jokes. I'm my own best audience... :P