More of what's wrong with America! Sick!

Foxrac said:
When come with crime - no.

When come with responsibility - yes.

It is preventable measure to drink responsibility.
Click to expand...

What if two people get drunk, and one beats the other to death? :hmm:
 
For people who don't understand about what I was saying so let me to clarity.

I don't blame on this white man for crime but he should know better when come with drink responsibly. There are people will take advantage of drunk people into huge trouble. This white man will have thorough with hassle, such as call bank or credit companies if his wallet is stolen, pay for car key replacement and some stuff won't recovered during robbed and stripped.
 
Foxrac said:
For people who don't understand about what I was saying so let me to clarity.

I don't blame on this white man for crime but he should know better when come with drink responsibly. There are people will take advantage of drunk people into huge trouble. This white man will have thorough with hassle, such as call bank or credit companies if his wallet is stolen, pay for car key replacement and some stuff won't recovered during robbed and stripped.
Click to expand...

So he deserved to get robbed, beat and stripped because he was drunk?
 
Steinhauer said:
So he deserved to get robbed, beat and stripped because he was drunk?
Click to expand...

why is it that you need to reword his post into silliness? it's so widely contorted that I thought you used to work for FOX News. you know very well that's not what he said. Hint - reread his Post #120 especially the last sentence.
 
Jiro said:
why is it that you need to reword his post into silliness? it's so widely contorted that I thought you used to work for FOX News. you know very well that's not what he said. Hint - reread his Post #120 especially the last sentence.
Click to expand...

It certainly appears that was what he said.
 
Steinhauer said:
It certainly appears that was what he said.
Click to expand...

well then I'm here to tell you that it is not. I'm also here to tell you that your reading comprehension is quite way off the mark today.
 
Jiro said:
why is it that you need to reword his post into silliness? it's so widely contorted that I thought you used to work for FOX News. you know very well that's not what he said. Hint - reread his Post #120 especially the last sentence.
Click to expand...

Jiro said:
well then I'm here to tell you that it is not. I'm also here to tell you that your reading comprehension is quite way off the mark today.
Click to expand...

Yup, you are correct about that.

Steinhauer, that's not what I was saying and not going answer your silly question, anyway.
 
Foxrac said:
No, nothing is preventable for stupid people to commit a crime.

If this man hasn't drink yet and go back to hotel without being intoxicated so he will get away from robbery and stripped.

Anyone who commit a crime against drunk people will hold liable for crime.
Click to expand...


I'll be the second person to really want to know your answer to this question:
"What about the responsibility of the criminal?"

You speak of the man, if he had not got drunk, he would not have ben assaulted not robbed. So what you are speaking of is accountability BEFORE an action of event takes place. So post your position of what should happen to "anyone who commits a crime", however, what is your position as far as to this person having personal responsibility not to commit a crime? In other words, would you be willing to state that this man should have never left his hotel room, got drunk and walked back to his hotel but also the criminals should have never left their homes neither?
 
rolling7 said:
I'll be the second person to really want to know your answer to this question:
"What about the responsibility of the criminal?"

You speak of the man, if he had not got drunk, he would not have ben assaulted not robbed. So what you are speaking of is accountability BEFORE an action of event takes place. So post your position of what should happen to "anyone who commits a crime", however, what is your position as far as to this person having personal responsibility not to commit a crime? In other words, would you be willing to state that this man should have never left his hotel room, got drunk and walked back to his hotel but also the criminals should have never left their homes neither?
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
rolling7 said:
I'll be the second person to really want to know your answer to this question:
"What about the responsibility of the criminal?"

You speak of the man, if he had not got drunk, he would not have ben assaulted not robbed. So what you are speaking of is accountability BEFORE an action of event takes place. So post your position of what should happen to "anyone who commits a crime", however, what is your position as far as to this person having personal responsibility not to commit a crime? In other words, would you be willing to state that this man should have never left his hotel room, got drunk and walked back to his hotel but also the criminals should have never left their homes neither?
Click to expand...

you're thinking way too hard into this. you must be hyperventilating :lol:

I'll make it very simple for you. responsibility? what responsibility? that's why he's a criminal! :lol:
 
"HE" !?! Who is "he"? I'm sure you are aware there is more than one person committing a crime, after all it is on MM.
 
rolling7 said:
"HE" !?! Who is "he"? I'm sure you are aware there is more than one person committing a crime, after all it is on MM.
Click to expand...

I admit, I stopped following this thread but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say "he" is The Man.

White corporate Christian upper-class America.

:barf: That.
 
Jiro said:
well then I'm here to tell you that it is not. I'm also here to tell you that your reading comprehension is quite way off the mark today.
Click to expand...

Well, I am here to tell you that I was talking to Foxrac and not you. And if it did not appear that Foxrac had not said that, then he would not have had to clariFy what he said. (not clariTy)
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I am here to tell you that I was talking to Foxrac and not you.
Click to expand...

oh?

Steinhauer said:
If you cannot understand Reba's intent on asking you that question (when it really had to do with Zimmerman and not you) then let me clarify what the question was intended for.
Click to expand...

how do you spell hypocrisy? :giggle:

Steinhauer said:
And if it did not appear that Foxrac had not said that, then he would not have had to clariFy what he said. (not clariTy)
Click to expand...
he already answered your question quite a while back but as usual - you continue to ask questions in the most convoluted way. why? I don't know.
 
Jiro said:
oh?



how do you spell hypocrisy? :giggle:


he already answered your question quite a while back but as usual - you continue to ask questions in the most convoluted way. why? I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think that he wants turn my post into silliness and he can report to Fox News.
 
Jiro said:
that's a singular noun.... hence "he"
Click to expand...

And what does Reba have to do with me? You quote my reply to Foxrac where I was asking him a question that he never answered. I'll admit Reba ask the same question but my post expanded the discussion. How about letting Foxrac answer his own question whenever he feels like it, although I'm admit he had the privilege and right to refuse and/our ignore the question.
 
Back
Top