White Man March: Khaki-clad men march for white pride

[BornRuff]

Yes, most lawyers do not commit or are victims of crimes that they prosecute or defend in court.

Lawyers are not tasked with committing crimes. They are tasked with defending or prosecuting people.

If you were on trial, would you be happy to hire a lawyer with no actual experience but who had read TONS of textbooks?

When they need to bring information about a specific subject matter before the court, they find someone with experience in that subject and put them on the stand.

 

[Cannuck]

Lawyers are not tasked with committing crimes. They are tasked with defending or prosecuting people.

Really? I didn't know that.

If you were on trial, would you be happy to hire a lawyer with no actual experience but who had read TONS of textbooks?

I would want one that had experience in practicing law preferably?

When they need to bring information about a specific subject matter before the court, they find someone with experience in that subject and put them on the stand.

Yes. You clearly understand a court room. Good for you. I'm not sure how it relates to a directorship but at this point you have to grasp at all the straws you can.

 

[L Gilbert]

Lawyers are not tasked with committing crimes. They are tasked with defending or prosecuting people.

If you were on trial, would you be happy to hire a lawyer with no actual experience but who had read TONS of textbooks?

When they need to bring information about a specific subject matter before the court, they find someone with experience in that subject and put them on the stand.

Really? I didn't know that.



I would want one that had experience in practicing law preferably?



Yes. You clearly understand a court room. Good for you. I'm not sure how it relates to a directorship but at this point you have to grasp at all the straws you can.

Fuk the topic, huh.

 

[Cannuck]

Fuk the topic, huh.

It is the topic. It's not our fault that you haven't been following for the last eight pages.

Do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling

 

[BornRuff]

I'm not sure how it relates to a directorship but at this point you have to grasp at all the straws you can.

Lol, this was the example you chose. Funny to see you running away from this one too.

If you are not even going to try to defend your points, why are you still posting?

 

[L Gilbert]

It is the topic. It's not our fault that you haven't been following for the last eight pages.

Yeah, your little argument with Ruff about lawyers hasn't anything to do with "white supremacists" marching in defiance of "white genocide".

Do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

Do you?

 

[Cannuck]

Lol, this was the example you chose.

Yes, I'm aware it was the example I chose. I'm saying that I don't see how the points you've been trying so feebly to make relate. Good gawd, do I have to start writing at a grade three level so you can keep up?

If you are not even going to try to defend your points...

If you have something that rebuts my position, I will defend my position. As of yet, I've seen nothing from you except "you have to live as an aboriginal to understand their viewpoint" which is complete and utter nonsense.

...why are you still posting?

Same reason I post in any thread. It's entertaining.

Yeah, your little argument with Ruff about lawyers hasn't anything to do with "white supremacists" marching in defiance of "white genocide".

Of course it does. You do understand the concept of racism, don't you?

Do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

 

[L Gilbert]

Of course it does. You do understand the concept of racism, don't you?

Humor me and explain the route from your first point. You do remember your first point, don't you?

Do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

I made a point that your argument with Ruff doesn't appear to have much to do with white supremacists marching in protest of becoming extinct, racism notwithstanding.
So do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

 

[BornRuff]

Yes, I'm aware it was the example I chose. I'm saying that I don't see how the points you've been trying so feebly to make relate. Good gawd, do I have to start writing at a grade three level so you can keep up?

Lol, you can't see how your example makes no sense so you are going to have a temper tantrum?

If you have something that rebuts my position, I will defend my position. As of yet, I've seen nothing from you except "you have to live as an aboriginal to understand their viewpoint" which is complete and utter nonsense.


Same reason I post in any thread. It's entertaining.

So is your method of arguing always just saying something and just telling everyone else they are wrong? You really seem to be lacking the ability to defend your points or explain why you disagree with someone else.

 

[Cannuck]

Humor me and explain the route from your first point. You do remember your first point, don't you?

Of course I do. It's really not my job to bring you up to speed after 8 or 9 pages. Don't be so lazy and do some reading if if bothers you so much.

I made a point that your argument with Ruff doesn't appear to have much to do with white supremacists marching in protest of becoming extinct, racism notwithstanding.

Yes, I'm aware of the points you've made.

So do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

 

[L Gilbert]

So do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

Do you?

Looked to me like you made a few provocative comments at the beginning of this thread and waited for people to take the bait. Then you led them down these long, windy, and only vaguely related to the topic. And that is tactically typical of you. You also tried imposing a definition of racism that you decided, no-one else, was THE definition to follow.
A while back you clearly said that racism is a belief and that 1st comes the belief and then the action. A few minutes later you contradicted what you had said and indicated that an action that excludes a certain "race" is racism. I pointed out that one can do something racist without being racist just as one can do something sexist without being sexist.
Now you've been disagreeing (rather than arguing) with Ruff about something that's a wee bit apart from supremacists marching in protest and has been edging farther and farther away from the topic at each post.
THAT makes YOU the troll.

 

[Cannuck]

Lol, you can't see how your example makes no sense so you are going to have a temper tantrum?

Nope. I would never get angry over something as silly as a web chat forum. I do recall you telling me to fuk off a few pages back so I think it's pretty clear who has the temper tantrums.

So is your method of arguing always just saying something and just telling everyone else they are wrong?

Nope, I just tell people they are wrong when they are wrong. If you keep trying to say that one has to be an aboriginal to know about aboriginal issues, I will keep telling you you are wrong. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

really seem to be lacking the ability to defend your points or explain why you disagree with someone else.

If you come up with something credible, let me know but really, why do you blame me because you can't come up with a realistic rebuttal to what I've stated.

You also tried imposing a definition of racism that you decided, no-one else, was THE definition ...

That silly statement negated your entire rant. If you consider posting the definition of racism from dictionary.com, "imposing a definition" then there really isn't anything to say. Is it any wonder I don't take you seriously.

 

[BornRuff]

Nope. I would never get angry over something as silly as a web chat forum. I do recall you telling me to fuk off a few pages back so I think it's pretty clear who has the temper tantrums.

Lol, yeah, I told you to **** off when you compared ignoring aboriginal people favorably to what Rosa Parks did.

Nope, I just tell people they are wrong when they are wrong. If you keep trying to say that one has to be an aboriginal to know about aboriginal issues, I will keep telling you you are wrong. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

How exactly is someone supposed to gain experience living as an aboriginal person without being an aboriginal person? What are you proposing?

 

[L Gilbert]

That silly statement negated your entire rant.

Only in your tiny mind.

If you consider posting the definition of racism from dictionary.com, "imposing a definition" then there really isn't anything to say. Is it any wonder I don't take you seriously.

It's mutual.
So you don't deny trolling. Interesting.

 

[Cannuck]

Lol, yeah, I told you to **** off when you compared ignoring aboriginal people favorably to what Rosa Parks did.

Come now. There's no point in making silly stuff up. It's all there for anybody to read.

How exactly is someone supposed to gain experience living as an aboriginal person without being an aboriginal person? What are you proposing?

Perhaps you should walk before you run. It may help if you stuck to one point. One time it's "knowledge on aboriginal issues" and the the next minute it's "experience living as an aboriginal". You keep moving the goal posts. Which one, exactly, do you think a member of the BOD needs?

 

[BornRuff]

Come now. There's no point in making silly stuff up. It's all there for anybody to read.

Well, yeah, it is there. Feel free to quote it if you like.

Perhaps you should walk before you run. It may help if you stuck to one point. One time it's "knowledge on aboriginal issues" and the the next minute it's "experience living as an aboriginal". You keep moving the goal posts. Which one, exactly, do you think a member of the BOD needs?

As far as the search function tells me, you are the only person who has used the word "knowledge" in this thread. I have always been talking about experience. Do you really disagree with the idea that experience is much more important than anything you can read in a textbook or have told to you?