Police strangle man to death for breaking up fight.
-
"I'm from the government and here to help"
That doesn't show anything except what you want it to show.
That doesn't show anything except what you want it to show.
It shows the cops killing a guy. What else do you fucking need? He clearly wasnt a threat and they bothered him. Thats why that cop will soon be fired and hopefully put in jail.
-
I thought it was a couple of cops that did that! Not just one!
-
Either way, cops are sociopaths tha kill more innocent people than terrorist.
-
Horse shit.
-
ALL cops cannot be labeled. That's bs.
Just a couple of rotten apples on the ground, here and there.
The big apple tree is fine. Come on, man.
-
ALL cops cannot be labeled. That's bs.
Just a couple of rotten apples on the ground, here and there.
The big apple tree is fine. Come on, man.
ALL cops cannot be labeled. That's bs.
Just a couple of rotten apples on the ground, here and there.
The big apple tree is fine. Come on, man.
The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha.
-
But to get back to the point, there are approximately 780,000 cops (as of 2012) in the U.S. We live in an age where any bad news is immediately accessible so you will hear about every tidbit of police brutality throughout the U.S. This makes people think it is some wide spread thing pandemic of police brutality when ultimately they are few and far between when compared to the number of cops.
-
The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha. Logic
************************************************************
the master of bs whines wrongly.
I use blanket statements about liberals, marxists, progressives, etc, because
by virtue of the definition, it's easier than qualifying it every time, and still fairly
valid.
There is no all-inclusive definition of policemen that one can negatively base that generalziation on.
-
The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha. Logic
************************************************************
the master of bs whines wrongly.
I use blanket statements about liberals, marxists, progressives, etc, because
by virtue of the definition, it's easier than qualifying it every time, and still fairly
valid.
There is no all-inclusive definition of policemen that one can negatively base that generalziation on.
The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha. Logic
************************************************************
the master of bs whines wrongly.
I use blanket statements about liberals, marxists, progressives, etc, because
by virtue of the definition, it's easier than qualifying it every time, and still fairly
valid.
There is no all-inclusive definition of policemen that one can negatively base that generalziation on.
So basically, nonsensical bullshit is o.k. so long as you are the one doing it?
-
I want you to remember this thread when you are squawking about how every Muslim/liberal/Democrat/atheist/(insert whichever Fox News boogeyman of the week) is hell bent on destroying America.
-
I couldn't care less. Your point is bogus.
Democrat politicians, are very much on the exact same progressive page, and you know it.
Marxists, liberals, progressives are trending being on the same page. It's part of the definition as such.
Now, atheists? There is no political trending with atheists. That's ignorant.
And I don't believe I've ever referred to Muslims as a group. There are Muslims, and then there
are many terrorist/sharia law extremists. But as an entitity - the Muslim religion has been badly
hijacked by the latter, and that draws negativism towards the religion. Probably wouldn't be so,
except for how the Koran reads on the surface.
Your jab is baseless. I've never said anything of the sort with atheists or Muslimis. What, I'm not posting enough recently? @@
(very busy)
-
I couldn't care less. Your point is bogus.
Democrat politicians, are very much on the exact same progressive page, and you know it.
Marxists, liberals, progressives are trending being on the same page. It's part of the definition as such.
Now, atheists? There is no political trending with atheists. That's ignorant.
And I don't believe I've ever referred to Muslims as a group. There are Muslims, and then there
are many terrorist/sharia law extremists. But as an entitity - the Muslim religion has been badly
hijacked by the latter, and that draws negativism towards the religion. Probably wouldn't be so,
except for how the Koran reads on the surface.
Your jab is baseless. I've never said anything of the sort with atheists or Muslimis. What, I'm not posting enough recently? @@
(very busy)
I couldn't care less. Your point is bogus.
Democrat politicians, are very much on the exact same progressive page, and you know it.
Marxists, liberals, progressives are trending being on the same page. It's part of the definition as such.
Now, atheists? There is no political trending with atheists. That's ignorant.
And I don't believe I've ever referred to Muslims as a group. There are Muslims, and then there
are many terrorist/sharia law extremists. But as an entitity - the Muslim religion has been badly
hijacked by the latter, and that draws negativism towards the religion. Probably wouldn't be so,
except for how the Koran reads on the surface.
Your jab is baseless. I've never said anything of the sort with atheists or Muslimis. What, I'm not posting enough recently? @@
(very busy)
You can pretty much justify any dipshit behavior you exhibit. Walt is definitely off with his blanket statements but you are on pretty unsteady footing when it comes to calling anyone else out on doing the exact same stuff you do.
-
The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha.
Exactly what I was thinking reading that post
-
I'm explaining, not rationalizing.
You won't admit the difference out of politics. No big deal.
You surely are Heck's "other brother Daryll"
-
I'm explaining, not rationalizing.
You won't admit the difference out of politics. No big deal.
You surely are Heck's "other brother Daryll"
I'm explaining, not rationalizing.
You won't admit the difference out of politics. No big deal.
You surely are Heck's "other brother Daryll"
I don't presume that because someone is liberal on one thing that they are some caricature of Che Guevera. You don't seem to be able to do that.
-
Also, Heck must have really upset you if you bring him up all the time.
-
Neither do it. But your point is bs. Political groups TREND to
their political bent.
So, I simply generalize on the trend, which is not an exact science, but it makes my points.
And, Heck never upset me at all. But your childish quibbling over some matters just seems very Heckish.
Go back and look at how democrats voted in block, on the disaster Obamaocare, mostly without ever
having read the stupid boondoggle.
That's a trend you see often. And yes, you can see it in Reps, too.
-
Cal can extrapolate a line using only one point
-
it wouldn't seem to be wrong to make blanket statements about groups that are only groups because they share specific beliefs. Like perhaps Nazis or communists. You have to choose to be a member of one of those groups and therefore would share whatever you are making a blanket statement about. It would not be correct to make blanket statements about groups of people of different opinions, for instance Americans or Russians.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login