SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,069
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,069
I don’t think he slithers out of spending time inside unless he stops breathing.
I’m thoroughly satisfied with either outcome.
I’m thoroughly satisfied with either outcome.
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 24,937
- Team supported
- City
He will only spend time in a soft prison/hotel for rich white folk anyway
blue for life
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 2,452
Lock him up! Lock him up!
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,069
That’s not how it works for these offences.He will only spend time in a soft prison/hotel for rich white folk anyway
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 24,937
- Team supported
- City
Glad to hear thatThat’s not how it works for these offences.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
I don’t think he slithers out of spending time inside unless he stops breathing.
I’m thoroughly satisfied with either outcome.
I'd like to see him convicted and incarcerated before he stops breathing.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
We all know little Marco is referring to Democrat's, but he's absolutelt nailed the perfect description of Mango Mussolini here...
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 5,981
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Fox News tells viewers that smokey air is not dangerous:
This irresponsible Fox News post is yet another example of why I think that modification of free speech rules regarding what can be posted/aired/distributed needs to be revised to reflect the 21st century. Gullible citizens will eagerly consume this nonsense, refusing to take any precaution against breathing dangerous smoke-filled air.
In a nutshell: is society best served when the dissemination of counter-factual or counter-science content is virtually free of regulation? Or rather, as I firmly believe, counter-factual and counter-science/expert opinion content must be regulated in some fashion.
It's as simple as this: if a society can't agree on facts, there's zero chance that good governance is sustainable.
This irresponsible Fox News post is yet another example of why I think that modification of free speech rules regarding what can be posted/aired/distributed needs to be revised to reflect the 21st century. Gullible citizens will eagerly consume this nonsense, refusing to take any precaution against breathing dangerous smoke-filled air.
In a nutshell: is society best served when the dissemination of counter-factual or counter-science content is virtually free of regulation? Or rather, as I firmly believe, counter-factual and counter-science/expert opinion content must be regulated in some fashion.
It's as simple as this: if a society can't agree on facts, there's zero chance that good governance is sustainable.