Why do the ritors ask for Justice?

[Silver]

I see one boob a day ... in the mirror.

Lost one to cancer?

[Arkilogue]

I see one boob a day ... in the mirror.

Lost one to cancer?

[abaris]

I have no leanings to the left or extreme left, nor the right or extreme right. I sit on the fence and call both sides since both the democrats/republicans, the labour party/conservatives are virtually the same. The days of the left helping the working man or woman has long since gone, and they help more of the middle classes.

The bolded part is the only true part of your above statement.

To say you have no leanings is simply wrong. You may not be affiliated with any side, but most of your posts show that your sympathies lie pretty far to the right. It's called selective posting. You pick the incidents you're interested in and these are almost always minorities fighting for their rights, shown in the worst light possible.

Apart from lip service (one or two words) I've yet to find any criticism of the right or far right coming from you. It's also pretty obvious in your kudos habits. You obviously consider Breitbart or the Free Republic serious news sources. Although I make no big secret over leaning pretty far to the unafiliated left, I never would embarass myself by presenting any leftwing source as if it was fact. If I don't find the incident I'm looking for in the mainstream media, I don't post it at all, since I'm always aware that that the report may be a flatout lie or something being blown out of proportion.

[RobertE]

To hell is sacred. I sensed a weird uncomfortable magnetism that has realised everything against death.

I have no leanings to the left or extreme left, nor the right or extreme right. I sit on the fence and call both sides since both the democrats/republicans, the labour party/conservatives are virtually the same. The days of the left helping the working man or woman has long since gone, and they help more of the middle classes.

The bolded part is the only true part of your above statement.

To say you have no leanings is simply wrong. You may not be affiliated with any side, but most of your posts show that your sympathies lie pretty far to the right. It's called selective posting. You pick the incidents you're interested in and these are almost always minorities fighting for their rights, shown in the worst light possible.

Apart from lip service (one or two words) I've yet to find any criticism of the right or far right coming from you. It's also pretty obvious in your kudos habits. You obviously consider Breitbart or the Free Republic serious news sources. Although I make no big secret over leaning pretty far to the unafiliated left, I never would embarass myself by presenting any leftwing source as if it was fact. If I don't find the incident I'm looking for in the mainstream media, I don't post it at all, since I'm always aware that that the report may be a flatout lie or something being blown out of proportion.

Bold is mine:

Show me my posts where I have stated anything about Breitbart, Socialist Workers Party or anything of that ilk. As for the right, I hate anything to do with Marine Le Pen, Trump (in spite of what you have read, since I have already stated I supported Trump for a wum), I hate Sarkozy, I hate Louis Farrakhan, I hate anything that is nationalistic (I have no reason to like any anglo-saxon country in spite of my origins because they have done nothing except for bringing misery to other nations. I don't sing any national anthems because they are patriotic, and patriotic is one thing I am not.

In that case, The Guardian and the Daily Mail can be ruled out since the reporting is clearly biased either to the left or right with regards to the Newspaper in question.

[abaris]

Show me my posts where I have stated anything about Breitbart, Socialist Workers Party or anything of that ilk.

Read it in context. The kudos you give, right before mentioning Breitbart. That's in answer to Bella's post defending Breitbart and the Free Republic sources and you instantly giving kudos. Meaning, she said something you can agree upon. So, guilty by association, I would say. Since that was the only thing she said in one of her usual oneliners. Paraphrasing quite losely: "That's implying these aren't serious sources". Followed by your kudos.

Also, mentioning the Guardian in the same breath as the above is like comparing the Times with an extreme rightwing blog. They may lean to the left or the right. But they are held accountable by law and do their checks. They may give their articles some spin in certain directions, but neither one of them stoops to the level of Breitbart, Alex Jones, the Free Republic or any leftwing blog.

[RobertE]

Show me my posts where I have stated anything about Breitbart, Socialist Workers Party or anything of that ilk.

Read it in context. The kudos you give, right before mentioning Breitbart. That's in answer to Bella's post defending Breitbart and the Free Republic sources and you instantly giving kudos. Meaning, she said something you can agree upon. So, guilty by association, I would say. Since that was the only thing she said in one of her usual oneliners. Paraphrasing quite losely: "That's implying these aren't serious sources". Followed by your kudos.

Also, mentioning the Guardian in the same breath as the above is like comparing the Times with an extreme rightwing blog. They may lean to the left or the right. But they are held accountable by law and do their checks. They may give their articles some spin in certain directions, but neither one of them stoops to the level of Breitbart, Alex Jones, the Free Republic or any leftwing blog.

I ruled out The Guardian and The Daily Mail since they are biased to the left and right respectively.

[RobertE]

Anyway, will be away for 90 minutes or so. Going to watch a real football match.....

[abaris]

I ruled out The Guardian and The Daily Mail since they are biased to the left and right respectively.

Nothing wrong with that in itself. They're still news as long as you know where they're coming from. Breitbart, the Young Republic or TYT, aren't. There's lightyears of differences between giving a real story a spin, outright making stuff up or blowing things out of proportion.

[Homeless Nutter]

Ok sport let's try this..

Hows about you tell me what you think my argument is

Ugh... Well, "sport", since you don't remember:

[...]The fact that you or anyone else does not know the first slave owner in North America was black or that Actual Africans/black people were the primary people who traded in African slave, only further underscores the level of the white guilt movement you have bought into.[...]

and how this contradicts it.

It's horsesh*t. Johnson wasn't the first slave owner in North America. He was merely one of the first slave owners of African origin (black) in America - because up to that point almost all slave owners over there were European white. And sure - the first black slaveholder in America was black. What's your point (if you have one)?

[RobertE]

I ruled out The Guardian and The Daily Mail since they are biased to the left and right respectively.

Nothing wrong with that in itself. They're still news as long as you know where they're coming from. Breitbart, the Young Republic or TYT, aren't. There's lightyears of differences between giving a real story a spin, outright making stuff up or blowing things out of proportion.

Half-time at the moment and we are winning 4-0. I just give kudos sometimes for the sake of it, since just like rep, I see no real value in it. In fact, the first time I ever heard of Breitbart, YR or even TYT was when Bella mentioned them.