Search results

Don't seem to be trying to be anything other than their risible selves.

He's an embarrassment to his own country and even his own regime, many of whom want him out.

So, America should only intervene or take action if it involves a country where it can ply valuable resources from? Go watch some more Patrick Lancaster videos...

The irony of Trump accusing anyone of sexual misconduct is laughable but at the same time De Santis hasn't exactly denied it either...More unsavoury antics from the Republican brigade...

The judge was right to instruct you in such a manner as you're not in a position to determine absolute guilt. That's not your or any other juror's job unless it's an absolutely open and shut case in which case a jury is pretty superfluous anyway. There are cases where guilt/innocence has been...

I was talking about people convicted being allowed to appeal the decision, not the judge. A judge most certainly should have access to counsel and expert assistance where it comes to deciphering the evidence, logistics etc. But if it comes down to his ruling alone where it comes to...

Well, no point in arguing against that sort of delusion...

Well, if it "can't be refuted" then how come it ain't taken seriously, even among Republicans? It's a joke.

Sure it was. It was all above board and most voters by a more than significant margin wanted Hobbs in over Lake. Who are you to dismiss what most folk wanted?

And? Just shoot it down and hope it doesn't hit anybody anyway? At that altitude I don't see the problem with waiting for it to travel over the ocean before being taken down.

I've already explained this to you and responses to others in what were forthright and clear terms. What's tripping you up? I'm well aware that to secure a conviction doesn't require absolute proof of guilt but proof beyond reasonable doubt and I'm not talking about changing that. I'm talking...

If you have a system that doesn't allow any sort of appeals process upon conviction and one whereby a lone judge is the one to make a decision then the amount of wrongful decisions would increase, not decrease and that's in terms of both the innocent being convicted and the guilty allowed to go...

Over a million people and there was risk of civilian casualties. If the decision was made to take it down before over the ocean and people died/were injured as a result I'll bet you'd be criticizing that as well, right?

Why would it given that the yardstick for execution is 100% proof of guilt, not conviction itself. I've explained this multiple times now from my position. The rest is just supposition and would result in a percentage of innocent people being wrongfully executed.

Bzzzt, Nil points. Ya really should give up on this whole clairvoyance sort of thing you've got going on there Stripe cos you are invariably off the mark with it...

Oh, so a post that's beyond a paragraph amounts to a 'rant' to you does it? Sure, they were both full of shouting, all caps, exclamation marks etc etc. You're funny Stripe, inadvertently but still funny... 😆

Yeah, that's not what I believe but then hey, kinda par for the course with you ain't it? :ROFLMAO:

Or possibly, just maybe it wasn't shot down until over the ocean because the debris could have killed people on the ground, just to add a non conspiracy option here...

In what way, do tell!

See the above to Derf. I'm sure you'll find some way of twisting it to mean something I don't etc.