This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 20 Nov 21 6.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
And she was useless, never spent many billions on crap or started a war! Thats all for her proper debut mate, second standing obvs!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 20 Nov 21 7.48pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Thats all for her proper debut mate, second standing obvs! Rumours that sleepy isn't overly enamoured with her and wants to unload her. Imagine the woke,BLM,portland massive reaction if he did and replaced her with a white person.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 20 Nov 21 7.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
Rumours that sleepy isn't overly enamoured with her and wants to unload her. Imagine the woke,BLM,portland massive reaction if he did and replaced her with a white person. Enjoy it mate, they can dig a hole, but are still running the ship, remind you of anyone?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 8.38pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, that could be argued about the people out there that night....if they hadn't been out there threatening and damaging businesses then Rittenhouse wouldn't have been there. If the Democrats had done their jobs in respect of law enforcement then it's also true that none of it would have happened either. Also once again, Rittenhouse was asked to help, and that's evidenced in the trial....it's not as though no one asked him. That's obvious whataboutism! The people he killed were, so far as I am aware, local. Were they even protesting, let alone "threatening and damaging businesses"? If they were then they were the responsibility of law enforcement and not some self-appointed, out of town, gun-toting, vigilante even if a local business welcomed him. Although that sounds more than a little contrived. The plain fact is the kid travelled a long way, armed and looking for trouble, and was not invited to go. If he had been, he should have refused. It was not his business. The constant allegations of the "Democrats not doing their jobs" is risible. At the very worst, it's a handful of local politicians either not providing sufficient resources for law enforcement to do their jobs, or, extremely improbably, giving instructions that they should not do their jobs. This isn't the policy of the DNC. Why on earth would it be? It would be madness. The accusations are just political mudslinging, which have the consequential effect of winding up people like this kid who can then, with the lack of effective gun laws, create the situation for which he was undoubtedly responsible for creating.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 20 Nov 21 8.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
Rumours that sleepy isn't overly enamoured with her and wants to unload her. Imagine the woke,BLM,portland massive reaction if he did and replaced her with a white person. Kamala and I love each other, and that's all you need to know.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 9.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Excuses for abuses. More pure wafflery. No one needs to protect inoffensive speech....Stalin was never concerned by inoffensive speech....oh and hate speech is a modern term dreamt up by leftists to....in more cases than not take people's liberties away and stop criticism of their stances. Waffling on about speech restrictions is actually a very dangerous position. There was nothing wrong with the laws we had in this country for centuries.....Blair started the restrictions. We now live in a country that is less free than the one I grew up in....and more pointedly the one you grew up in as you are apparently over 25 years older. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Nov 2021 5.18pm) We have a breakthrough and can agree about something! No-one needs to protect inoffensive speech. So does this mean you now agree that we do need to protect against grossly offensive speech. As I do? If so, all we need to do is determine what is grossly offensive, and what isn't. That has changed over the years as we have become more adept at recognising what is grossly offensive. There will always be disagreements about what is, and what is not, grossly offensive. That's healthy. But we ought to be able to agree about some basic concepts. Like encouraging violence of any kind. Or sedition. Indeed, Rule 8 of this very site contains many of the things that most people now find grossly offensive. Just because some people find something offensive is not, in my opinion, enough to restrict it. It has to be something that can cause real harm. Yes, it's different to my youth. Back then, people with black skins were openly called w*gs, or n*ggers. Even the most racist among us would blanch at that today. So it's much better.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 9.10pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Some people want to stop it dead. Ask Kathleen Stock or J. K. Rowling. Some people want all sorts of things. Doesn't mean they are right, or that they will get what they want. Nor does it mean that others, who want some of what those people want, are wrong.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 20 Nov 21 9.12pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's obvious whataboutism! The people he killed were, so far as I am aware, local. Were they even protesting, let alone "threatening and damaging businesses"? If they were then they were the responsibility of law enforcement and not some self-appointed, out of town, gun-toting, vigilante even if a local business welcomed him. Although that sounds more than a little contrived. The plain fact is the kid travelled a long way, armed and looking for trouble, and was not invited to go. If he had been, he should have refused. It was not his business. The constant allegations of the "Democrats not doing their jobs" is risible. At the very worst, it's a handful of local politicians either not providing sufficient resources for law enforcement to do their jobs, or, extremely improbably, giving instructions that they should not do their jobs. This isn't the policy of the DNC. Why on earth would it be? It would be madness. The accusations are just political mudslinging, which have the consequential effect of winding up people like this kid who can then, with the lack of effective gun laws, create the situation for which he was undoubtedly responsible for creating. It's only whataboutism if you regard double standards as fine. Actually most of those dudes who attacked Rittenhouse had a further trek to get there than he did....so you're basically talking out of your Cornwall again. Rittenhouse was asked to turn up and was cleaning graffiti off of his workplace for most of that day. As for your excuses for Democratic politicians not properly using Police enforcement during that 18 month period....which everyone other than an idiot or liar knows was deliberate policy......Well, I think you know for well why that was done and I don't want to fill up this post with the obvious reasons why because they have been said many times. It is in fact true that if these places had been enforced there would have been no incident like this....in fact all of the places that saw significant rioting for 18 months were Democrat run. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Nov 2021 9.19pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 20 Nov 21 9.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
We have a breakthrough and can agree about something! No-one needs to protect inoffensive speech. So does this mean you now agree that we do need to protect against grossly offensive speech. As I do? If so, all we need to do is determine what is grossly offensive, and what isn't. That has changed over the years as we have become more adept at recognising what is grossly offensive. There will always be disagreements about what is, and what is not, grossly offensive. That's healthy. But we ought to be able to agree about some basic concepts. Like encouraging violence of any kind. Or sedition. Indeed, Rule 8 of this very site contains many of the things that most people now find grossly offensive. Just because some people find something offensive is not, in my opinion, enough to restrict it. It has to be something that can cause real harm. Yes, it's different to my youth. Back then, people with black skins were openly called w*gs, or n*ggers. Even the most racist among us would blanch at that today. So it's much better. There was no requirement to restrict free speech from the laws that already existed. Laws that enable Police to turn up at someone's door telling them to 'check their privilege' is not progress. Laws that mean action can be taken by Police just on the 'perception' of offence...not intent...are in my view a disgrace to have on the books. Laws were already there for bad behaviour and that included insults you don't like. So no, there is no way I agree with your support for today's fear culture. This is no longer an honest society and I don't regard that as healthy....and it leaves it far more open to manipulation as we are seeing in Cricket. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Nov 2021 9.30pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 20 Nov 21 9.22pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Enjoy it mate, they can dig a hole, but are still running the ship, remind you of anyone?
She isn't even liked in the Democrat party let alone nationally....just looking at her candidate results showed that. I can't seriously believe that the Democrats would run with her.....because they would have to seriously rig the election to win.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 20 Nov 21 9.24pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Some people want all sorts of things. Doesn't mean they are right, or that they will get what they want. Nor does it mean that others, who want some of what those people want, are wrong. They have got what they wanted. One lost her job and the other has been prevented from attending the anniversary celebration of her own creation.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 20 Nov 21 9.40pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Enjoy it mate, they can dig a hole, but are still running the ship, remind you of anyone? There is a difference. One got voted in properly,legally and above board and will again.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.