Trump Moves In

First topic message reminder :

Okay, so the American Election thread has run its course and it has been proven in a bombshell wikileak today that all Intelligence agencies involved (American, Russian, British, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Australian and Brazilian) are now in total agreement that the election was above board, clean, non-contentious, valid and entertaining.

So onto the special day.  What a celebration we're all going to have tomorrow as the most popular President in the history of Illuminati Conspiracy Theory stands on a half filled podium and puts his hand on the book - that cannot be named lest it offend some of the sensitive Satanist protesters present - and swears allegiance to his family, his business empire, his twitter account and Alex Jones.

I believe he intends to make a conciliatory speech whereby he'll pledge to continue the war on terrorism by suppressing Rosie O'Donnell's freedom of movement and methods of funding.  He might even declare sanctions on Meryl Streep but he secretly loves her so....well, the CIA better keep an eye on that one.  Trump might be caught fraternising with the enemy yet again if she ever accepts the dove's feather of peace and attends one of his many planned orgies at Trump House.

We all waited impatiently for this day and now it's upon us.  Let's hope the marksman is off to the right a little.  Let's hope the bomb fails to go off.  Let's hope the protesters keep away from matches and keep their bras on.  But apart from all that, lets' discuss the bright future ahead under Donald Trump.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

That's why I take the pee out of spaz's.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

That's far-right/Christian fundamentalists who should make the statement?  So, I assume that means the Muslim Fundamentalists represent the far-left in your mind's eye?

Was this person who allegedly acted alone in killing the poor guys in the Mosque a practicing Christian? Maybe he was - God-forbid! - a practicing Atheist type?  But you still want to get that boot in there at the 'Christians' just because it feels good?

It seems that's what religious preference has become - yet another indicator of political preference.  Christian (far-right, fascist wacko nut) - Muslim (far-left socialist well meaning underdog, with just a little too hot of a temper)

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

That's why I take the pee out of spaz's.

Good for you..

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, re collateral damage, how many civilians have been killed by US bombs and drone strikes in the middle-east? Or do they not count?

How many Countries were on our side when we did it ???..

Stupid argument.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, re collateral damage, how many civilians have been killed by US bombs and drone strikes in the middle-east? Or do they not count?

How many Countries were on our side when we did it ???..

.

Those Pals again...

Always try to hoof the big bad stuff onto The Great Satan, Amerikay - tend to forget their own wormtongue part in the Shock'n'Awe shows.

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, re collateral damage, how many civilians have been killed by US bombs and drone strikes in the middle-east? Or do they not count?

How many Countries were on our side when we did it ???..

.

Those Pals again...

Always try to hoof the big bad stuff onto The Great Satan, Amerikay - tend to forget their own wormtongue part in the Shock'n'Awe shows.

One way friendship it seems......I love the revisionism when it comes to the middle East..

Yeah us Brits are so proud of our governments actions in following USA blindly across the middle east.

I've put down my position.......No point in just trading abuse and sarcasm......

Happy for people to disagree with me...Unlike other people I believe in freedom of speech !!

I'm a Liberal until it comes to National security....Always have been and 9/11 toughened the resolve....I don't apologise for that.

Anything that keeps US and UK citizens safe from scum I'm happy with...I don't want innocent people abused or killed....But I'd rather it be to people who only know how to hate..

No offence meant by my arguments on here and non taken in return......

It is an emotive issue...I understand that..

                                                Yours Sincerely,

                                                       Spaz..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, re collateral damage, how many civilians have been killed by US bombs and drone strikes in the middle-east? Or do they not count?

How many Countries were on our side when we did it ???..

.

Those Pals again...

Always try to hoof the big bad stuff onto The Great Satan, Amerikay - tend to forget their own wormtongue part in the Shock'n'Awe shows.

One way friendship it seems......I love the revisionism when it comes to the middle East..

As Hero says, you make the mistake of thinking I'm happy to support the UK drone strikes killing innocents. Nice bit of whataboutery, but my initial post was clearly in response to your absurd suggestion that collateral damage in the war on terror has so far all been one-way.

Point out where I wrote you or Hero would be happy to accept that ??...

No one is happy to see innocent people die apart from the radicals themselves..

Our safety comes first......For me..

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs........Perhaps the moderate Muslim leaders could be more vocal..

That might help................

"Our safety comes first". Quick, better ban cows then...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/13-things-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-refugee-terrorist?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.sxYZ3KvkD#.rhGqRjeEM

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Our safety comes first". Quick, better ban cows then...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/13-things-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-refugee-terrorist?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.sxYZ3KvkD#.rhGqRjeEM

Would that be due to being trampled, or just eating too many burgers then?


Back on topic, the long term solution to terrorism is better aid programmes to help third-world and developing countries become more prosperous.

The majority of the footsoldiers of groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda come from impoverished backgrounds and become radicalised because the fanatics brainwash them, give them false hope with their extreme ideology and - in the short term at least - provide money, food, shelter and a sense of purpose.

Fanaticism and extremism find little foothold in relatively prosperous countries, where the majority are happy with their lot.

The senior clerics, hate preachers and recruiters would be reduced to lone voices in the wilderness and objects of ridicule, much like the far right groups are in Europe, noisy but impotent and largely unthreatening.

Of course, this won't do anything to prevent more Osama bin Laden types (fanatics from wealthy backgrounds) but I think it would certainly go a long way to preventing extreme Islam becoming a major divisive and destructive force as it has been over the last decade or so.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Our safety comes first". Quick, better ban cows then...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/13-things-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-refugee-terrorist?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.sxYZ3KvkD#.rhGqRjeEM

You're a Corbyn supporter so you have form on being very tolerant....Not that it is always a bad thing..

I remember two kids going to a soccer game in the 90s in Warrington and being murdered by the IRA.....Around the time Corbyn was going out of his way to mount platforms with Adams and his ilk......To me that is disgusting..

By no means am I suggesting you agreed with his stance...

But I've voted Labour in all the elections I've been eligible for....But I'd never vote for this guy.....

You would....and it is fairplay........

I wasn't calling you a spaz, Truss. Was simply making a point about it not being acceptable to take the pee out of certain groups.

I'm not a Corbyn supporter particularly, not sure where you get that from. I agree with some of his ideas, disagree with others. I have more in common with his policies than May's, though am probably closest to the Green party if we're only looking at policy. Of course, in the UK's absurd electoral system a vote for the Greens is usually wasted, so I probably won't vote for them. Honestly not too sure who I'll vote for, it won't be Corbyn though because he's unlikely to stand in my constituency

13 things more likely to kill you:  
Your doctor
Your drinking habits
Your eating habits
Your sexual habits
Your excessive driving speed.
Your pretentious phone habits, in a car.
Your cool 'recreational' drug habits (in or out of a car)
Your peer-pressure death-wish suicidal thoughts (in or out of a car)
Your recklessness when on a bike
Your choice of holiday destination.
Your break-up with your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Joining ISIS
Joining ISIS specifically to activate your peer pressure, death-wish suicidal thoughts.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

I remember two kids going to a soccer game in the 90s in Warrington and being murdered by the IRA.....Around the time Corbyn was going out of his way to mount platforms with Adams and his ilk......To me that is disgusting..

But British Governments already had undisclosed platforms with Adams and his ilk. One of them was a man called 'Stakeknife'. And he wasn't the sole operator either.

People really have to start believing the only lesson to be learned; and that is to stop blindly believing the official surface of every story dished out to you. Look for duck's legs paddling like hell underneath. Question everything - because sooner or later the truth gets out.

Truss is rapidly morphing into Donald Trump.......he's already got the back story!!

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

I remember two kids going to a soccer game in the 90s in Warrington and being murdered by the IRA.....Around the time Corbyn was going out of his way to mount platforms with Adams and his ilk......To me that is disgusting..

But British Governments already had undisclosed platforms with Adams and his ilk.  One of them was a man called 'Stakeknife'.  And he wasn't the sole operator either.

People really have to start believing the only lesson to be learned;  and that is to stop blindly believing the official surface of every story dished out to you.  Look for duck's legs paddling like hell underneath.  Question everything - because sooner or later the truth gets out.

So the earth is flat after all?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

I remember two kids going to a soccer game in the 90s in Warrington and being murdered by the IRA.....Around the time Corbyn was going out of his way to mount platforms with Adams and his ilk......To me that is disgusting..

But British Governments already had undisclosed platforms with Adams and his ilk.  One of them was a man called 'Stakeknife'.  And he wasn't the sole operator either.

People really have to start believing the only lesson to be learned;  and that is to stop blindly believing the official surface of every story dished out to you.  Look for duck's legs paddling like hell underneath.  Question everything - because sooner or later the truth gets out.

So the earth is flat after all?

No. Haven't you heard that the boys long ago stopped believing the official surface story (a story that got you killed if you said you didn't believe it ) and just went ahead and said they didn't believe the Earth was flat and kinda liked the theory that it was spherical instead.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you, Julius; but nope...the earth ain't flat.

..oh and Stakeknife isn't a fictional Bond villain either....

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wasn't calling you a spaz, Truss. Was simply making a point about it not being acceptable to take the pee out of certain groups.

Good for you..

Hero wrote:Yeah us Brits are so proud of our governments actions in following USA blindly across the middle east.

This is the argument..."It's okay because.."

Watched a Black rights matter protest last year and whites that believe in equality (Like I do) went to join and support.

When they got there the Organisers shouted out "White people go to the back"..

But that's okay "Because years ago there was slavery in America"...

Where does it end..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hero wrote:Yeah us Brits are so proud of our governments actions in following USA blindly across the middle east.

This is the argument..."It's okay because.."

Watched a Black rights matter protest last year and whites that believe in equality (Like I do) went to join and support.

When they got there the Organisers shouted out "White people go to the back"..

But that's okay "Because years ago there was slavery in America"...

Where does it end..

I think that must have been the professional, media backed element of the movement that was barking those orders.  Ain't nothing more embarrassing than having a bunch of mouthy white folks shouting out for Black Lives at the front of a nice Black Rights march.  The optics are not only embarrasing but have dangerous connotations that the white guys - even in a Black Rights movement - are the ones in charge again.

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Ah, saying what Shah admitted to ain't so?  Good, you're a politician... like American judges.

I much prefer dealing with people with attitude rather than pretending judges/lawyers don't often colour 'interpretation' of Law to suit their own political bent.  That's why you have a Prosecutor and a Defender... one of those legal people is telling a lie, or know that they are defending a lie..... just ask Hillary Clinton - she laughed about it, didn't she.

Just utter, f*cking, wrong-headed nonsense.  

Just fact ...but fact doesn't go down well with some people - gives them a tummy ache.  

Every lawyer truly believes their client is always innocent, every prosecutor believes the defendant is truly guilty?  
It's a game.  But you go on believing the childish claptrap about nobility and dignity and pious jurisprudence of the Legal profession.  It's a game they play - theatre.  

Don't be daft. Of course defence lawyers know some of their clients are guilty as sin, but their clients and they are entitled to ensure that proper justice is served, whether that be a guilty verdict or, in fact, things aren't what seemed so obvious and their client is actually innocent. Just because a defence barrister thinks their client is guilty, doesn't mean they'll do anything except act entirely properly. Likewise (if you know what I mean) for prosecutors. They all have a job to do and I doubt their own personal politics come in to it very much.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I find amusing is when Ken Bigley or that kind guy from the North West who was doing charity work got his head removed.....There is hardly a fuss made... even that comedian Billy Connolly did a few Bigley jokes if memory serves and it didn't affect his career..

But waterboard a couple of terrorists or terrorist-hangers on......and it's the end of the World..

Bollox to them....Collateral damage isn't going to be just one way in the war against terror.

Come on Truss. Don't be a d!ckhead; you're much better than that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

Yes, they can have some satire fired in their direction and their religion is no more special when it comes to ridicule than any other. What that doesn't equate to is saying it's fine to waterboard as standard, just because some who claim to be Muslim act like pigs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

That's why I take the pee out of spaz's.

I beg your pardon???

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

Yes, they can have some satire fired in their direction and their religion is no more special when it comes to ridicule than any other. What that doesn't equate to is saying it's fine to waterboard as standard, just because some who claim to be Muslim act like pigs.

Only terrorists that can help keep us safe..

It's good to talk.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

That's why I take the pee out of spaz's.

I beg your pardon???

I was being ironic. Or sarcastic. Possibly both.
My point is that society has rightly decided (more or less) that taking the pee out of certain groups is generally not acceptable, because it is offensive to them.
Mocking a religion, just for the sake of mocking them, just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean that we have to mock them. Why not just say, hey this offends them, I'm not the sort of person who enjoys offending people for the fun of it, so I'll keep my mouth shut.

Of course, that is different from valid criticism of a religion.

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hero wrote:Yeah us Brits are so proud of our governments actions in following USA blindly across the middle east.

This is the argument..."It's okay because.."

Watched a Black rights matter protest last year and whites that believe in equality (Like I do) went to join and support.

When they got there the Organisers shouted out "White people go to the back"..

But that's okay "Because years ago there was slavery in America"...

Where does it end..

I think that must have been the professional, media backed element of the movement that was barking those orders.  

Interesting assumption. Would it be better to have some facts before forming a belief? Or shall we all just fit everything in with our own pre-conceived ideas?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only terrorists that can help keep us safe..

It's good to talk.

Most of the people waterboarded weren't terrorists. Just random people because the US was handing out bounties to anyone who turned someone over.

But yeah "collateral damage" "if it keeps us safe" "9/11" etc etc

No one is arguing it isn't cheap to mock religion for the sake of it (Wake up little Susie)..

Just suggesting you shouldn't be killed for it.

But keep arguing with yourself.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one is arguing it isn't cheap to mock religion for the sake of it (Wake up little Susie)..

Just suggesting you shouldn't be killed for it.

Fairly obvious, that.

navyblueshorts wrote:
Don't be daft. Of course defence lawyers know some of their clients are guilty as sin, but their clients and they are entitled to ensure that proper justice is served, whether that be a guilty verdict or, in fact, things aren't what seemed so obvious and their client is actually innocent. Just because a defence barrister thinks their client is guilty, doesn't mean they'll do anything except act entirely properly. Likewise (if you know what I mean) for prosecutors. They all have a job to do and I doubt their own personal politics come in to it very much.

You call it a job to do - I'll agree and say Yes, they are employed to pick through evidence, ignore other evidence, concentrate mostly on certain evidence and anything they can muster to get their guilty clients off or get innocent people convicted.  That's their job.  Correct.  You call that 'Justice' at work and I'll call it legal theatre.  Is it any wonder that lawyers are often considered to make the best politicians?  They can spin a yarn and make it sound real.

But yes, they have a job to do and thus why Democrats are now opposing Trump's 'Noble' nomination because they declare his political views aren't ....well, they don't fit in with theirs.  Surprise, surprise  Back to politics.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hero wrote:Yeah us Brits are so proud of our governments actions in following USA blindly across the middle east.

This is the argument..."It's okay because.."

Watched a Black rights matter protest last year and whites that believe in equality (Like I do) went to join and support.

When they got there the Organisers shouted out "White people go to the back"..

But that's okay "Because years ago there was slavery in America"...

Where does it end..

I think that must have been the professional, media backed element of the movement that was barking those orders.  

Interesting assumption. Would it be better to have some facts before forming a belief? Or shall we all just fit everything in with our own pre-conceived ideas?

Well yes, let's just all believe what we want to believe.  It's easier.  Then you can choose to believe that the optics of whites at the rear aren't important to these people when the cameras are looking.  And you can also choose to believe dubious White guys aren't joining in the funding of the movement.  Let the pre-conceived ideas methodology rule, Julius. I'm fine with that solution.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only terrorists that can help keep us safe..

It's good to talk.

Most of the people waterboarded weren't terrorists. Just random people because the US was handing out bounties to anyone who turned someone over.

But yeah "collateral damage" "if it keeps us safe" "9/11" etc etc

If it keeps us safe......You wrote it..

I care about people that care..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only terrorists that can help keep us safe..

It's good to talk.

Most of the people waterboarded weren't terrorists. Just random people because the US was handing out bounties to anyone who turned someone over.

But yeah "collateral damage" "if it keeps us safe" "9/11" etc etc

If it keeps us safe......You wrote it..

I care about people that care..

It doesn't. It does the opposite. Terrorists were bred at Bucca.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only terrorists that can help keep us safe..

It's good to talk.

Most of the people waterboarded weren't terrorists. Just random people because the US was handing out bounties to anyone who turned someone over.

But yeah "collateral damage" "if it keeps us safe" "9/11" etc etc

If it keeps us safe......You wrote it..

I care about people that care..

It doesn't. It does the opposite. Terrorists were bred at Bucca.

If a Woman gets assaulted by three guys and five are laughing and cheering them on.....Does that make those guys innocent ??

I'll concede there were some people at the Bay that shouldn't have been.....I'm sorry about that..

But there were nearly 3,000 people killed that shouldn't have been back on 9/11...

Pity they seem to take a back seat...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll concede there were some people at the Bay that shouldn't have been.....I'm sorry about that..

But there were nearly 3,000 people killed that shouldn't have been back on 9/11...

Pity they seem to take a back seat...

People died in 9/11 so anything that happens to unrelated people is acceptable collateral. Pathetic, and not sure why I'm replying.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll concede there were some people at the Bay that shouldn't have been.....I'm sorry about that..

But there were nearly 3,000 people killed that shouldn't have been back on 9/11...

Pity they seem to take a back seat...

People died in 9/11 so anything that happens to unrelated people is acceptable collateral. Pathetic, and not sure why I'm replying.

Distorting my argument...So you can have a cheap pop..

Moving on..

Scottrf wrote:
People died in 9/11 so anything that happens to unrelated people is acceptable collateral. Pathetic, and not sure why I'm replying.

I would assume that Truss means that if nearly 3,000 people on American soil - actually not all of them US citizens, btw - but if those people can be targeted as somehow symbolic of America and/or its Foreign Policies, then that's probably a declaration of war on the US.
Therefore, that means that the Americans then go off and try to get to the bottom of who ordered the declaration of war, who was involved in the actions and that they do so by attacking the supposed source nations Plus gaining information from captured 'combatants'...i.e. waterboarding to extract valuable information on any future terrorist plans directed at the American mainland or their interests in other nations.

Now I disagree with the truth of virtually everything there and I'm against torture as the method of gaining information. But a person could use such an argument if they Did believe that a man called Osama Bin Laden, backed by a rogue State or two, was out to bring down the US.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
Don't be daft. Of course defence lawyers know some of their clients are guilty as sin, but their clients and they are entitled to ensure that proper justice is served, whether that be a guilty verdict or, in fact, things aren't what seemed so obvious and their client is actually innocent. Just because a defence barrister thinks their client is guilty, doesn't mean they'll do anything except act entirely properly. Likewise (if you know what I mean) for prosecutors. They all have a job to do and I doubt their own personal politics come in to it very much.

You call it a job to do - I'll agree and say Yes, they are employed to pick through evidence, ignore other evidence, concentrate mostly on certain evidence and anything they can muster to get their guilty clients off or get innocent people convicted.  That's their job.  Correct.  You call that 'Justice' at work and I'll call it legal theatre.  Is it any wonder that lawyers are often considered to make the best politicians?  They can spin a yarn and make it sound real.

But yes, they have a job to do and thus why Democrats are now opposing Trump's 'Noble' nomination because they declare his political views aren't ....well, they don't fit in with theirs.  Surprise, surprise  Back to politics.

Nope.

Yes.

An innocent person is innocent and evidence 'Should' prove him/her innocent (if he/she is damn lucky enough to have sufficient evidence lying around) But lawyers only really go to work when they know they either have an innocent they have prosecute or they have a guilty client that they have to argue 'innocence' for.

That's when a lawyer gets creative with the truth.

Back to Hillary.

SecretFly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:
People died in 9/11 so anything that happens to unrelated people is acceptable collateral. Pathetic, and not sure why I'm replying.

I would assume that Truss means that if nearly 3,000 people on American soil - actually not all of them US citizens, btw - but if those people can be targeted as somehow symbolic of America and/or its Foreign Policies, then that's probably a declaration of war on the US.  
Therefore, that means that the Americans then go off and try to get to the bottom of who ordered the declaration of war, who was involved in the actions and that they do so by attacking the supposed source nations Plus gaining information from captured 'combatants'...i.e. waterboarding to extract valuable information on any future terrorist plans directed at the American mainland or their interests in other nations.

Better off if he sticks to "not replying"...Enough hit and run types on here already..

SecretFly wrote:Yes.

An innocent person is innocent and evidence 'Should' prove him/her innocent (if he/she is damn lucky enough to have sufficient evidence lying around)  But lawyers only really go to work when they know they either have an innocent they have prosecute or they have a guilty client that they have to argue 'innocence' for.

That's when a lawyer gets creative with the truth.

Back to Hillary.

Read it twice and ran it through Google translate, but it still came out as nonsense. Anyway, carry on making assumptions from a position of ignorance - it's why the Internet was invented - to give voice to those who would otherwise have none.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I find amusing is when Ken Bigley or that kind guy from the North West who was doing charity work got his head removed.....There is hardly a fuss made... even that comedian Billy Connolly did a few Bigley jokes if memory serves and it didn't affect his career..

But waterboard a couple of terrorists or terrorist-hangers on......and it's the end of the World..

Bollox to them....Collateral damage isn't going to be just one way in the war against terror.

Come on Truss. Don't be a d!ckhead; you're much better than that.

I'm making a more concerted effort to fit in !!..

superflyweight wrote:

Read it twice and ran it through Google translate, but it still came out as nonsense.  Anyway, carry on making assumptions from a position of ignorance - it's why the Internet was invented - to give voice to those who would otherwise have none.  

It's not nonsense.  You just can't argue yourself out of the blunt fact that lawyers and legal people actively seek to manipulate 'Truth' in order to increase their success rates, increase their reputations, increase their promotion hopes, increase any political ambitions they might have down the line and increase the wallet size.

Now only a kindergarten attendee would believe the fairytale that all lawyers have a vocation to integrity, honesty and an unbiased dedication to cold hard 'fact'.

If you can't argue yourself out of a ambush, don't argue yourself into one.

Ooft. That's me suitably put in my place.

SecretFly wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: Trump now wants to persecute non white people and many are flocking to his call but please remember GOD controls this world and he has said in the bible that those who lead into captivity will themselves go into captivity its time to drop this myth of white supremacy and join with the rest of the world as one.

Why don't all them nice peoples that are afflicted by all the Whites and things just go and live in Saudi Arabia or China?  Why do all the people that does be hating white people for all the things their ancestors done still like going to places where white people have big jobs and nice cars, and beer that's cold, and women that dress hot, and entertainment, and music, and films, and plays, and opera, and deep sea fishing, and Disney for the kids, and mountains to climb, and rivers to canoe in, and parks to play in and elections to vote in?

You are saying the non-white people who have lived in the US for centuries should move to china/saudi arabia, rather than engage in political action in their home country? Or are you implying that non-whites have some sort of a choice in the country where they are born and raised?