|
|
| Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting (1238001) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1238250) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 11:07:11 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by AlM on Sun Nov 2 10:59:48 2014. I don't know, that's why I asked. At the end of the day the Court of Popular Opinion doesn't make much difference. |
|
|
| (1238251) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 11:13:12 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 10:57:26 2014. You didn't answer my question. Until we do, no point in discussing this.Why does the RW "leak" misinformation? |
|
|
| (1238252) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Nov 2 11:13:42 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 11:07:11 2014. There has been at least one major false leak. It was clearly pretty deliberate. At the time, you asked who would gain by reporting this falsely. Well, someone obviously thought they were gaining by making a false leak, or else it wouldn't have happened.That doesn't mean that the current leaks are false. But it does indicate someone might think they could gain from false leaks. |
|
|
| (1238253) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 11:28:33 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 11:13:12 2014. Why does the LW "leak" misinformation? |
|
|
| (1238255) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Nov 2 11:57:16 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Nov 1 12:28:14 2014. No. |
|
|
| (1238256) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 11:58:08 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 11:28:33 2014. You have yet to address my specific example, which is far more relevant as it has been or is attempted to be codified into law (including your current residence) involving informed medical consent, which firstly is NOT the place of government and secondly is a boldface LIE.Address that. Or shut up. |
|
|
| (1238258) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 12:00:53 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 11:58:08 2014. What does any of that have to do with he subject of this thread? Do you suffer from ADHD, unable to stick with a thread for more than 5 minutes before wandering off in another direction? |
|
|
| (1238262) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 12:59:24 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 12:00:53 2014. No I do not. You, OTOH, won't answer a simple question. This thread is about leaked i formation and hearsay being taken as fact. RWers do this all the time. When another example of same, much larger in scope than one single police killing under dubious circumstances is ought forward to solidify a point, you whine till you shit then whine again. Answer me.You've been taken to task twice here. Obviously you're incapable of addressing it. Fail. |
|
|
| (1238265) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by train dude on Sun Nov 2 13:29:25 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 11:58:08 2014. And you have not addressed my question about why US troops were sent to Western Africa |
|
|
| (1238268) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by train dude on Sun Nov 2 13:38:52 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 12:00:53 2014. Its called Doughnut Drift Disorder or DDD for short |
|
|
| (1238269) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Nov 2 13:51:53 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 12:59:24 2014. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1238327) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 2 18:19:24 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 12:59:24 2014. I'm still waiting for you to explain what 3000+ US Army troops were sent to West Africa for. You said it was to fight terrorism. Do you now admit that you were wrong? Why won't you ever own up to your mistakes while trying to take everyone to task when you think that they are wrong? |
|
|
| (1238328) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 18:22:09 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sat Nov 1 21:33:31 2014. you're such a troll. |
|
|
| (1238337) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 2 19:06:33 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 18:22:09 2014. Rim shot |
|
|
| (1238344) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 19:27:23 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 18:22:09 2014. Game, set, match! |
|
|
| (1238345) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 19:28:51 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 12:59:24 2014. Oh, please. The essence of the LW is to release hearsay and make something out of nothing. read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias for many example of this. |
|
|
| (1238347) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 19:53:32 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 19:27:23 2014. thanks for attacking from Tarrant County, Texas.I've been there. I love the Stockyards. I'd go to Pizza Patron. I miss them being on the East Coast. |
|
|
| (1238351) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 19:59:22 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 19:28:51 2014. Wrong. The left backs their stuff up with facts, as there's way too much evidence in one's favor. No need to deceive.You haven't answered my question. Are all RWers rude as well as deceptive? |
|
|
| (1238352) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 20:02:05 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 19:59:22 2014. The Emotionals are disturbed people.I wonder if they'll be able to give Charlie Crist a w1n? Bill Clinton and Jeb Bush are both campaigning. The Emotionals are not as jacked up about Crist. But he could win. That would suck. |
|
|
| (1238375) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 21:05:47 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 20:02:05 2014. Yes they are. I he there's enough sane rational Americans to overwhelm them at the polls Tuesday, and we get to at least start setting the baselines for the future. We don't need ignorant, strung out RWers anywhere near power.they've done ore than enough damage. |
|
|
| (1238384) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:35:57 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 2 19:53:32 2014. Dude, I'm supporting not attacking you! |
|
|
| (1238391) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:46:04 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by bingbong on Sun Nov 2 19:59:22 2014. The left backs their stuff up with factsROTFL!!!! The essence of the Left is to dismiss or even to censor opposing views. Left bias includes distorted selection of information. Hell, LW radio thrives on releasing hearsay information. |
|
|
| (1238392) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Nov 2 21:50:23 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:46:04 2014. The essence of the Left is to dismiss or even to censor opposing views.Right, which is why the conservatives in your state have decided to simply ban liberals from voting. You have definitely earned one of these: 
|
|
|
| (1238393) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 2 21:53:55 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:46:04 2014. That's the definition of the Left. They don't shy away from outright lies. |
|
|
| (1238394) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 2 22:05:55 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:46:04 2014. If they ever printed Liberal money, bingbong's pix would be on the $13 bill |
|
|
| (1238395) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 2 22:08:14 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 21:46:04 2014. Urban Dictionary:bing bong A game used in the stoner culture to determine who the spliff is passed to in which the person currently in possession of the joint says bing, the first person to say bong is passed the rifa |
|
|
| (1238399) | |
Re: Question 10 Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Nov 2 22:53:22 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 2 21:53:55 2014. 10. Name three people you believe are not liberal. |
|
|
| (1238410) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Nov 2 23:02:55 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Dave on Sun Nov 2 19:28:51 2014. LW meaning Breitbart, O'Keefe and company? Because man ... just a this year retrospective of what the right's been publishing here is ... embarassing. |
|
|
| (1238452) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Nov 3 06:50:29 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 2 22:05:55 2014. LOL!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1238457) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Nov 3 07:10:02 2014, in response to Re: Question 10 Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Nilet on Sun Nov 2 22:53:22 2014. George Washington, John Adams and Samuel Adams (not the beer).Now go take a bath. And acknowledge that I answered Question 11 several times over. |
|
|
| (1238500) | |
Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Nov 3 10:03:11 2014, in response to Re: Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Nov 3 07:10:02 2014. October 30 |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||