SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

Hmmmmm

Four teenage girls spared jail after bus stop attack on Egyptian student

 

[Embattle]

I wrote on my reminder list to cut down on my junk food and sugar intake.

Well. I thought I had. I can't tell. I used my notebook as a plate for a big slice of cappuccino and walnut cake with dark chocolate buttercream



Now I've got ink on my tongue too. Happy days

You certainly like Ink related drama.

 

[georgie]

What you agree that boeing should blame the pilots?

I am saying that Boeing the corporation need grow the fuck up and stop supporting the idea that the pilots were not good enough because they were not trained by america.

You think the pilots were to blame ? I think you took some funky stuff!

Edit: oh and i saw someone from boeing the other day on tv saying american pilots wouldnt have crashed or equiv

No, I mean I can't work out what you're trying to say.

Instead of saying shit our stuff put them in the position. Its damn of they were american trained and bench pressed 150lbs it wouldnt have happened.

That made my head hurt like Job's posts do.

 

[Moriath]

No, I mean I can't work out what you're trying to say.



That made my head hurt like Job's posts do.

Instead of saying, shit our stuff put them in that position. Boeing have been saying its because they werent american trained and couldnt bench press 150lbs. If they were the accident wouldnt have happened.

 

[Hawkwind]

Really is aweful they are trying to blame the pilots for a software / sensor malfunction that was a single point of failure.

Instead of saying shit our stuff put them in the position. Its damn of they were american trained and bench pressed 150lbs it wouldnt have happened.

Stupid, do they think everyone is like their president?

Its just lawyers putting it out there before the families of the deceased victims start suing. They have very little else to fall back on as a mitigating argument.

 

[Moriath]

Its just lawyers putting it out there before the families of the deceased victims start suing. They have very little else to fall back on as a mitigating argument.

I know. But its what is wrong with society. When covering your arse is accepted more than fessing up.

Was alway told as a kid if you do something wrong better to take it on the chin than be caught in a lie.

On another note.


View: https://twitter.com/so_bad_ass/status/1141452674115788805


Road trip some here should take

 

[Gwadien]

Sacked rugby star in anti-gay row asks for donations
Utter utter scumbag.

 

[Scouse]

Sacked rugby star in anti-gay row asks for donations
Utter utter scumbag.

Oh poor gay people, can't possibly be allowed to hear that christians have been taught to hate them. Maybe the gay christians out there really don't like the realities of their religious belief and it makes them feel uncomfortable that maybe they're fucking idiots.

What we should do at all costs is protect people from feeling bad even if it means we have to pretend the world is a completely different place than we know it to be. An adult understanding of reality is just too horrifying for our timy little minds.

Plus, pretending that the church isn't anti-gay means that we don't have to confront it. As long as people can secretly be taught that gays are going to hell then all is fine and dandy. No consequences for kids or adults there at all.

Remember: people getting upset is the worst thing that can ever happen.

 

[Gwadien]

Do you rinse the same argument for every topic, even when it's irrelevant?

 

[Gwadien]

I've seen lots of responses to this this morning...

Greenpeace accuses minister of 'assault'

Mainly from your Brexiteer types the response has been supporting the MP saying that she could have been carrying acid or a knife.

LOL.

 

[Exioce]

Look at the faces and actions of the women in the audience, they know what's up.

 

[Job]

The great british legal system.

Cyclist to pay £20,000 to woman who stepped into road while using phone | Metro News

 

[Job]

Sacked rugby star in anti-gay row asks for donations
Utter utter scumbag.

I thought hell awaited non believers.

As a non believer I demand the entire catholic church is sacked.

 

[Job]

I've seen lots of responses to this this morning...

Greenpeace accuses minister of 'assault'

Mainly from your Brexiteer types the response has been supporting the MP saying that she could have been carrying acid or a knife.

LOL.

Hes gone obviously.
Another nail in the coffin...if that had been a male protester, no issue, but because its a not really equal, only when it suits them..female, he loses his job.

Talk of throwing acid?
I thought that was OK now?

 

[Gwadien]

Hes gone obviously.
Another nail in the coffin...if that had been a male protester, no issue, but because its a not really equal, only when it suits them..female, he loses his job.

Talk of throwing acid?
I thought that was OK now?

So to clarify, you get annoyed when milkshake is thrown at your fuhrer, but when a dirty hippy protester gets grabbed by the neck, because she MAY have a weapon on her, that's fine?

Seriously man, you're a fucking joke.

WAHH WAHH OVERBEARING POLICE, yeah but I also think you should be able to assault people if you think they have a weapon (in hindsight)

 

[Scouse]

Do you rinse the same argument for every topic, even when it's irrelevant?

It's absolutely relevant.

You called him an "utter scumbag" when all he is is a practising christian who is trying to stand up for his beliefs.

He's clearly deluded - in my opinion all people who follow religions are - but it's how he's been brought up.

Utter scumbag? Define that please. And, importantly: Define what level of offense, and a list of things that are officially "offensive" enough that people should lose their jobs when they say the words that aren't the words they're allowed to say.

I'm serious. List please. As you are a supporter of censoring and, importantly, censuring people who have different-than-acceptable opinions then you have to provide a list of unnaceptable things that people have to check before talking in case they're going to lose their jobs over it.

I'm serious. This is a problem people like you have made with your policing of offence attitude. It's unworkable and can have devastating fallout. The onus, then, is for people like you to provide a solution - a list of opinions that we are not allowed to express.

 

[Gwadien]

It's absolutely relevant.

You called him an "utter scumbag" when all he is is a practising christian who is trying to stand up for his beliefs.

He's clearly deluded - in my opinion all people who follow religions are - but it's how he's been brought up.

Utter scumbag? Define that please. And, importantly: Define what level of offense, and a list of things that are officially "offensive" enough that people should lose their jobs over when they say words that aren't the words they're allowed to say.

I'm serious. List please. As you are a supporter of censoring and, importantly, censuring people who have different-than-acceptable opinions then you have to provide a list of unnaceptable things that people have to check before talking in case they're going to lose their jobs over it.

I'm serious. This is a problem people like you have made with your policing of offence attitude. It's unworkable and can have devastating fallout. The onus, then, is for people like you to provide a solution - a list of opinions that we are not allowed to express.

I called him a utter scumbag because he's a multi millionaire and he's asking for money for his legal case.

Cba to engage with you in freedom of speech stuff, you're been baited by the 4chan kids too hard.

 

[Scouse]

I called him a utter scumbag because he's a multi millionaire and he's asking for money for his legal case.

Rest of post please.

Or be branded an intellectual coward who can't defend his strongly held position.

It's clearly your world and your rules. You have to provide a solution that is workable for people who don't share the officially sanctioned worldview.

 

[Job]

So to clarify, you get annoyed when milkshake is thrown at your fuhrer, but when a dirty hippy protester gets grabbed by the neck, because she MAY have a weapon on her, that's fine?

Seriously man, you're a fucking joke.

WAHH WAHH OVERBEARING POLICE, yeah but I also think you should be able to assault people if you think they have a weapon (in hindsight)

Its assault is it?
He held her neck and marched her out without the slightest physical damage...she reported being shocked.
Not a stain on her dress..barely a hair out of place...a reaction to an invasion.

 

[Gwadien]

Or be branded an intellectual coward who can't defend his strongly held position.

lmao.

How about you're getting baited by the 4chan kids who are telling the world that the Liberal Agenda is encroaching on everyones rights and we should destroy them!!111111oneoneoneone.

You're just as bad as Job.

Nothing has changed.

 

[Gwadien]

Its assault is it?
He held her neck and marched her out without the slightest physical damage...she reported being shocked.
Not a stain on her dress..barely a hair out of place...a reaction to an invasion.

He held her neck = assault.

So you think that holding someone by the neck and forcibly moving them is less worse than throwing milkshake at someone?

LOL.

 

[Gwadien]

I do love it how the Tories like to bang on to their 2050 0 emissions promise.

As if they're pretending to do something about the environment; kicking it down the road.

 

[Job]

You have a go at me for 'denying' it, when no one is going the slightest thing about it.
Including every single one of you.

Name one single personal inconvenience you have taken to reduce co2.

 

[Job]

Anyway..I like this guy.
Hes from Finland..never heard of it.



View: https://youtu.be/xxxWwdeGz1Q

 

[Scouse]

lmao..

Seriously - if we're going to prohibit speech to the tune of people's lives getting wrecked if they say something that's prohibited you have to provide a list of stuff that people aren't allowed to say.

You support this stuff @Gwadien. This is a perfectly reasonable ask.

 

[Gwadien]

Seriously - if we're going to prohibit speech to the tune of people's lives getting wrecked if they say something that's prohibited you have to provide a list of stuff that people aren't allowed to say.

You support this stuff @Gwadien. This is a perfectly reasonable ask.

Don't be a retard

You literally are being Job.

 

[Access Denied]

Its assault is it?
He held her neck and marched her out without the slightest physical damage...she reported being shocked.
Not a stain on her dress..barely a hair out of place...a reaction to an invasion.

Of course it's assault, you inbred fucknut. And the gender of the victim makes no bloody difference. She was walking, with no visible weapons and he shoved her into the wall, grabbed her and manhandled her. Self-defence or defence of others doesn't come into play because as previsouly stated, there were no visible weapons. You can't do that to someone based on the possibility and I think you know that, or you'd be out there assaulting every Muslim you came across and arguing that they might have had a bomb.

 

[Scouse]

Don't be a retard

You literally are being Job.

That's not a response. It's a serious question.

If, as a society, we're going to censure people for non-conformity to a specified world-view, we must define that world-view to give people the opportunity to conform.

Instead - people are losing their jobs and going to jail for saying what they think. Not taking actions, just saying what they think.

You're refusing to engage because you like your world view and don't like to think that people who think like you actually do damage - real damage - to other people's lives.

 

[Scouse]

Of course it's assault, you inbred fucknut. And the gender of the victim makes no bloody difference. She was walking, with no visible weapons and he shoved her into the wall, grabbed her and manhandled her. Self-defence or defence of others doesn't come into play because as previsouly stated, there were no visible weapons. You can't do that to someone based on the possibility and I think you know that, or you'd be out there assaulting every Muslim you came across and arguing that they might have had a bomb.

Question: How do you remove protestors from an area without touching them?

If you can't "eject" someone with reasonable force then any protestor could get access to any meeting anywhere and just shout and scream until the whole room cleared.

At some point you *have* to lay hands on somone.

 

[Access Denied]

Question: How do you remove protestors from an area without touching them?

If you can't "eject" someone with reasonable force then any protestor could get access to any meeting anywhere and just shout and scream until the whole room cleared.

At some point you *have* to lay hands on somone.

You hire security. Which is a areasonable thing to do if there's a likelihood of someone entering with the intention of disrupting things. They have legal protections against assault charges when using reasonable force because it's their job.