For all your pompous condescension you are not backing yourself well yet.
Yes you can simply call me names and not back it, and say "tough", all you like. Regardless of whether the statements are factual or not, (and yes I am happy to debate this), that does not mean that they are bigoted.
What would be really poor form is to think that calling people names proves the argument, that the person is the very things you named that person. It would be almost as bad to think that pompous condescension makes a point for you. It doesn't.
One in four. Not the first time nor the first place I saw harrowing statistics around Swedish rape and rape crisis. Don't get me wrong, it may be all beat up. Feminist propaganda, right wing conspiracies, or academics trying to generate bogus studies to generate funding and attention.
But my point is clear and any rational person would not have found it confusing and neither did you. You just did not agree with what I was saying. I do not find that at all surprising. Plenty of people here in this thread do not agree with you on the "the right to bear arms" not being constitutional. Its fine to believe this but it doesn't make you right, moral or better for believing otherwise.
The same applies to whether this horrific act was terrorism and whether it can be placed alongside any other Radical Islamic based terrorist attack. We could take a poll on that if you like. I think you may be surprised at the results.
Now I don't know your views on Radical Islamic beliefs. I have not asked, and I do not know if I really care, but I think that these views are anti-intellectual, divisive, hateful, exclusionary and anti-Western in every sens of the word. We know that there is real issues such as I mentioned. We can pretend that the extent of the problem is minor or able to be effectively countered. We can say that these things are not a systematic problem
Been for a swim lately Odeon?
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Swedish+swimming+pool+sexual+assaultsBut yes nothing systematic as I say. The 1 in 4 is looking closer and closer. As above in the link. It is not to any ONE post you can dismiss.
So now we come down to not what "we" should do, but what America should do. Hillary Clinton wishes to up the up the intake of immigrants from country where Radical Islamic practitioners are numerous generally and Syria specifically (550%). Perhaps she doesn't go to public swimming pools often, I don't know.
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslim immigration and place it on hold until he feels that the FBI can properly reference all Muslims from such countries as to whether they may be Radicalised and limit the risk of such things as the rape crisis and terror attacks that seems to come as a result of such Western hatred from the radicals in Muslim communities.
One makes NO sense and not only ignores the harm but exacerbates it. The other is a little vague on details and perhaps a little impractical BUT it is at least not likely to do harm and is acknowledging the issue. Whilst this may stop moderate Muslims from moving to America, I am sure it will not prevent more Muslims good and bad from immigrating to other countries in Europe. The good ones will work hard and integrate and make a cultural and social contribution to your society. The bad ones? Well you may see them down the local pool molesting women and childre nor heading over to Cologne for New Year's Eve celebrations BUT if you do not see them, that too is a concern, they may be planning the next terrorist attack. I do not think Americans want that and I think Trump recognises this.
See, you criticise trump and he is a blustering, egomanical blowhard on his bad days, but on issues like this I think he is making a very tough, hard, but good call.
So you can say that I am making Trump's talking points but I don't care. I think Hillary is a horrible human being and out of the two, Trump is a far better pick. Who else is there? Bernie? The crazy old Socialist? Gary Johnson the 10%'er and gormless dope-smoker? No it comes down to a criminal and a blowhard. In pretty much every measure he is the best of a bad lot. He is the only chance to beat Hillary (and Hillary needs to be beaten and hopefully jailed).
But have you got anything better than calling me a bigot or intellectually dishonest or perhaps for an encore a poopy-pants? You got an argument? A position? Anything more concrete than insults and condescension?
Not making demands of course. Do what you like. Your board - your rules. Hell you could change the front page and its inconvenient talk of backing yourself. You could remove Call out areas entirely if you wanted. Or you could ignore it and pretend it was of no consequence.
But I know it used to be an anvil of which you used to pound and doing otherwise would seem hypocritical to me.
....There is accountability, however. There is the fact that you had better back up your words when asked, or join some other, moderated, board instead.
The disclaimer says it all. If you are the sensitive type, there are plenty of other boards out there.
....I have no problem understanding why something like the PM spam happens. I just don't like it. It's sneaky and it's dishonest because it's not in the open. It feels very much like an attempt to avoid the accountability that is or at least should be central to how this place works. Remember that shit? Say whatever you like but be prepared to back up your words...
You're not making much sense. but yeah, I'm asking you to back up your shit because it's how we do things here.
Take your time.
....I think you should either prove me wrong, linking to any relevant posts, or shut up. In other words, back up your shit.
Notice, folks, how he never specifies his innuendos? Back up your shit, Cal, or just shut up. Homework, remember?
...Back up your shit. Or apologise.
C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.
....But always be prepared to back up your actions.
...I suggest you to back up your accusations or shut up.
