Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News1 min ago
Was The Bbc Correct By Producing And Showing Such A Programme?
81 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rockrose. read this carefully !
https:/
Trump managed to bankrupt not 1 but 4 casinos. In each case he made sure he personally made money out of them but dumped his investors and employees in the *** . He has always been the same in finance and in relationships. Grabs what he wants for himself, does not give a damn about anyone else and then lies about it.
https:/
Trump managed to bankrupt not 1 but 4 casinos. In each case he made sure he personally made money out of them but dumped his investors and employees in the *** . He has always been the same in finance and in relationships. Grabs what he wants for himself, does not give a damn about anyone else and then lies about it.
PeterPedant,// have I just read:
"and NONE of them have sued!" ( so it must be untrue)
"yes they have !"
"o yippee for them ! foo!"//
What you read is an honest acknowledgement that if there’s valid reason to criticise then criticism is valid – something that few, including you, appear to be capable of comprehending. Disingenuous criticism is not valid. It’s spiteful - and that's what I object to. I long ago concluded that if this man discovered a cure for cancer somehow he’d be wrong.
Eddie, //Trump managed to bankrupt not 1 but 4 casinos.//
I told you that yesterday but good to see you’ve been paying attention for once. Well done. I’m still at a loss to understand why you think this is relevant here though.
"and NONE of them have sued!" ( so it must be untrue)
"yes they have !"
"o yippee for them ! foo!"//
What you read is an honest acknowledgement that if there’s valid reason to criticise then criticism is valid – something that few, including you, appear to be capable of comprehending. Disingenuous criticism is not valid. It’s spiteful - and that's what I object to. I long ago concluded that if this man discovered a cure for cancer somehow he’d be wrong.
Eddie, //Trump managed to bankrupt not 1 but 4 casinos.//
I told you that yesterday but good to see you’ve been paying attention for once. Well done. I’m still at a loss to understand why you think this is relevant here though.
//.. Or as v_e says, the Clinton rape allegations. //
or as Clinton said: "I did not have sex with that woman!"
haha oh yes he did! - (but if he said he didnt then he didnt)
// What you read is an honest acknowledgement that if there’s valid reason to criticise then criticism is valid//
THIS is loeb's theorem
amazing to see it under such authorship but miracles really do happen.
"An immediate corollary of Löb's theorem is that, if P is not provable in PA, then "if P is provable in PA, then P is true" is not provable in PA."
didnt understand it ? neither did I
https:/
or as Clinton said: "I did not have sex with that woman!"
haha oh yes he did! - (but if he said he didnt then he didnt)
// What you read is an honest acknowledgement that if there’s valid reason to criticise then criticism is valid//
THIS is loeb's theorem
amazing to see it under such authorship but miracles really do happen.
"An immediate corollary of Löb's theorem is that, if P is not provable in PA, then "if P is provable in PA, then P is true" is not provable in PA."
didnt understand it ? neither did I
https:/
Naomi @ 06:55; "I long ago concluded that if this man discovered a cure for cancer he'd still be wrong."
True, there are those on here who believe he is the devil incarnate. However, he believes he is God. And the way you constantly defend him, it would seem you agree with him. I long ago concluded that if Trump rode into town astride a great bull (a la Mongo of Blazing Saddles), shooting everything and everyone in sight, you'd still find cause to defend his actions.
True, there are those on here who believe he is the devil incarnate. However, he believes he is God. And the way you constantly defend him, it would seem you agree with him. I long ago concluded that if Trump rode into town astride a great bull (a la Mongo of Blazing Saddles), shooting everything and everyone in sight, you'd still find cause to defend his actions.
Ken, I suggest you ask that doctor to give you something to improve your powers of comprehension. Your Smart meter does, indeed, need topping up. I’ve given Eddie a leg up in his efforts to denigrate Mr Trump, and I’ve agreed that criticism is valid when it’s valid – which it is. What isn’t valid is deliberate and disingenuous spite. My crime appears to be my refusal to run with the hysterical herd, and if that is a crime, then I’m guilty as charged - and very happy to be so.
However, what I was about to say...
I watched Panorama program last night. It stated its objective in its opening sentence - to assess the moral character of the President.
Its means were to examine charges of sexual misconduct by interviewing his many female "victims", none of whom - unlike those who accused Clinton - claimed to have been raped, by the way.
In a court of law you would expect that at least some of these witnesses would be exposed to hostile cross-examination by defence council. Panorama, on the other hand, treated the testimony of these women not only uncritically, but sympathetically. This was not a dispassionate investigation, this was propaganda.
Oh, after the women a former Trump associate provided the final proof of moral turpitude. At some beauty pageant or other event Trump pointed to a woman, leaned across and said "You wouldn't mind a bit of that, would you?".
This is what reading the Guardian and eating muesli can do to your moral and mental balance.
And here's an afterthought. You know that bloke who's up on the law, very hot he was on the Tommy Robinson case - due process, presumption of innocence and sub judice (which I'm sure he pronounces with a "j") - yes, all that stuff, you know who I mean? If[i the program had been commenting on a person standing trial in a British court on any of the charges, and protected to the same degree as alleged rapists are, then the program makers and its sponsors would [i]all] be guilty of contempt of court, wouldn't they?
I watched Panorama program last night. It stated its objective in its opening sentence - to assess the moral character of the President.
Its means were to examine charges of sexual misconduct by interviewing his many female "victims", none of whom - unlike those who accused Clinton - claimed to have been raped, by the way.
In a court of law you would expect that at least some of these witnesses would be exposed to hostile cross-examination by defence council. Panorama, on the other hand, treated the testimony of these women not only uncritically, but sympathetically. This was not a dispassionate investigation, this was propaganda.
Oh, after the women a former Trump associate provided the final proof of moral turpitude. At some beauty pageant or other event Trump pointed to a woman, leaned across and said "You wouldn't mind a bit of that, would you?".
This is what reading the Guardian and eating muesli can do to your moral and mental balance.
And here's an afterthought. You know that bloke who's up on the law, very hot he was on the Tommy Robinson case - due process, presumption of innocence and sub judice (which I'm sure he pronounces with a "j") - yes, all that stuff, you know who I mean? If[i the program had been commenting on a person standing trial in a British court on any of the charges, and protected to the same degree as alleged rapists are, then the program makers and its sponsors would [i]all] be guilty of contempt of court, wouldn't they?
Naomi, my last comment on this, honestly, cross my heart and hope to back a few winners. The Beeb are quite within their rights to make this documentary. And we, the viewers are quite within our rights to watch it or not. And, those that chose to do so are quite within their rights to believe it or not. Even if said programme was as one sided as England v Panama. There is no difference between watching this programme and forming an opinion of Trump, and reading your fav politically biased, one sided daily and forming your opinions based on their columns. My own opinion of the man is largely based on his childish tweets but i don't feel the need to come on here and condemn his every move. Because of that, i cannot really understand why you feel it necessary to stick up for him whenever any of the anti-Trump brigade do so. It is rather strange behaviour. Have a nice day and don't spend too long in the sun.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.