Discussing Trump is not discussing politics. It's more comparatively akin to, say, watching MasterChef and then watching a 2 yr old kid smearing ice-cream from a bowl onto his face and table and bib, etc .....
There's nonsense and there's menace. People should still be able (90% of the time) to spot the difference.
That's really not fair. If there is one thing I am confident Trump is winning at, its getting food into his mouth. Bigly. Many people agree with me.
Felt like we went from hearing from you daily to silence for a while; but maybe that was just my perception.
(Speke - Getting back to this thing, since the thread abruptly curtailed before I responded: Basically, I share your feeling on this in terms of the emotional quality of what should be - however, humans don't tend toward the "what should be" mostly - and when it comes to religion it is just logically unsound to pass such laws, since religion cannot be defined. I could choose to start worshipping child-pornographers tomorrow. I might have some kind of spiritual revelation (or say I had had one) - Fact #1. You can't determine that I didn't. Which would then, by your logic, forbid you from ever confronting anything I said urging people to get involved in child pornography and child ritual sacrifice. For nothing more than a) unwillingness to offend me when I should bloody well be offended and harrassed for such a religion's views; or b). fear of being punished by the law for vocally hating my religion (which you should have a right to do). It is, as I said before, utter fvcking nonsense. Laws made by people who haven't followed the logic through. And I still stand over my right to call Tom Cruise a stupid Scientologist Cvnt. Fvck the law on this. He is. Imprison me .... Doubtless some won't get it - but I am just trying to point out that people don't fully understand the scope of thier "supposed" convictions on these kinds of things, and that's a bad thing. Feb 8, 2019 ↑ I am, nonetheless, firmly and absolutely opposed to the idea that religious beliefs should be protected from insult. Anyone can criticize religion , zaq but I think when individuals become targets of abuse because of their beliefs is when it becomes a real problem. I think West Ham's policy is sound as is the law. A West Ham spokesperson said: “We have a zero-tolerance policy to any form of violent or abusive behaviour. We are an inclusive football club. Regardless of age, race, religion or belief, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment or disability, everyone is warmly welcomed at London Stadium. “Anyone identified committing an offence will have their details passed to the police and will face a lifetime ban from London Stadium. There is no place for this kind of behaviour at our stadium.”
Proposed new rule changes: HAND BALLS KICKS AND PENALTIES SUBSTITUTES https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...1gA-dE0I4596PHh9BW0-Wn5qRLubUopYmb4jX7dbXKjcg
I would also like to add 2 more things to that (please, FIFA?).... -No substitutions in stoppage time. -After a free kick is called against you, touching the ball (as the defensive team) will result in an automatic yellow card. Not making a clear effort to back away from the ball will also result in a yellow.
For a good laugh: "Real Madrid have reportedly made Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp their top managerial target for the end of the season, as they seek to recover from their shock elimination from the Champions League on Tuesday" Taken from the SI website https://www.si.com/soccer/2019/03/0...iority-following-champions-league-humiliation