Skashion
Well-Known Member
No, we know the evidence wasn't there to convict or he'd have been convicted.mackenzie said:So you don't know then.
Thanks.
No, we know the evidence wasn't there to convict or he'd have been convicted.mackenzie said:So you don't know then.
Thanks.
mackenzie said:Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.
Rocket-footed kolarov said:mackenzie said:Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.
Anybody can watch or read the cider house rules, and if they have no sympathy for legal abortion whatsoever then I have no time for them.- This point doesn't really relate to you though. An argument usually has to be from an intellectual point of view otherwise if it is purely informed through emotions and no reasoned thought it will usually be irrational, incoherent and illogical- so no point in having it. Why do want to bring that "previous debate" up anyway?
He seems to be one of the current bogeymen and his departure will produce a small feel-good factor for some. Something's definitely not right here though.hilts said:It seems strange that both the tories and labour wanted shut of this man if he wasn't any sort of risk, the cost and hassle wouldn't be worth it if he was just a mouthy loon, why they wouldn't just produce some evidence as they must have something seems strange though.
On principle it is hard to argue against our resident do gooders, the fact is most wont be losing too much sleep about what happens to this guy
hilts said:It seems strange that both the tories and labour wanted shut of this man if he wasn't any sort of risk, the cost and hassle wouldn't be worth it if he was just a mouthy loon, why they wouldn't just produce some evidence as they must have something seems strange though.
On principle it is hard to argue against our resident do gooders, the fact is most wont be losing too much sleep about what happens to this guy
mackenzie said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:mackenzie said:Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.
Anybody can watch or read the cider house rules, and if they have no sympathy for legal abortion whatsoever then I have no time for them.- This point doesn't really relate to you though. An argument usually has to be from an intellectual point of view otherwise if it is purely informed through emotions and no reasoned thought it will usually be irrational, incoherent and illogical- so no point in having it. Why do want to bring that "previous debate" up anyway?
You think an emotional problem can't first be reasoned through in an intellectual and reasoned way?? Really??
dronefromsector7g said:He seems to be one of the current bogeymen and his departure will produce a small feel-good factor for some. Something's definitely not right here though.hilts said:It seems strange that both the tories and labour wanted shut of this man if he wasn't any sort of risk, the cost and hassle wouldn't be worth it if he was just a mouthy loon, why they wouldn't just produce some evidence as they must have something seems strange though.
On principle it is hard to argue against our resident do gooders, the fact is most wont be losing too much sleep about what happens to this guy
paphos-mcfc said:hilts said:It seems strange that both the tories and labour wanted shut of this man if he wasn't any sort of risk, the cost and hassle wouldn't be worth it if he was just a mouthy loon, why they wouldn't just produce some evidence as they must have something seems strange though.
On principle it is hard to argue against our resident do gooders, the fact is most wont be losing too much sleep about what happens to this guy
I believe his deportation has something to do with the recently deceased soldier in the Woolwich attack. Things that escalated from that may have forced the government to do something to appease the public anger. Just an opinion like.
mackenzie said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:mackenzie said:Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.
Anybody can watch or read the cider house rules, and if they have no sympathy for legal abortion whatsoever then I have no time for them.- This point doesn't really relate to you though. An argument usually has to be from an intellectual point of view otherwise if it is purely informed through emotions and no reasoned thought it will usually be irrational, incoherent and illogical- so no point in having it. Why do want to bring that "previous debate" up anyway?
You think an emotional problem can't first be reasoned through in an intellectual and reasoned way?? Really??