Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

Gingerteeth

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    76

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Gingerteeth

  1. Gingerteeth
    You will have to prove the ATV moved.
  2. Gingerteeth
    What if what if what if.... Considering I have countered your point. Your post is utter nonsense.
  3. Gingerteeth
    Can still be tried for negligence resulting in a death.
  4. Gingerteeth
    Breaking a vehicle window is destruction of property not theft. One person jumping on the ATV isn't theft. The four youth were drunk by their own admission. This position is strengthened by the fact none of the youth are being charged with theft. These aren't professional theives these are drunk youth being stupid.
  5. Gingerteeth
    To get help with a flat tire as the youth said, they were also drunk. Drunk youth don't make good choices but trying to shoehorn the situation into them being thieves is disingenuous. There is currently no evidence, charges or anything else against those youth so it makes zero sense to keep calling them thieves. Posting different articles with different interpretations of the event isn't helpful either and the fact all the parties statements do not add up. Both sides made poor choices.
  6. Gingerteeth
    Your point would be correct if they tried for murder again. Details are ambiguous meaning there is no evidence they were comitting armed robbery.
  7. Gingerteeth
    They admitted to breaking a truck window and leaving they didn't take anything. And a drunken youth jumping onto an ATV is very flimsy evidence of armed robbery.
  8. Gingerteeth
    That statement would be true if they stole stuff from the first two properties which they didn't. So there is no evidence for him to claim that or for you to keep spouting that falsehood.
  9. Gingerteeth
    There no evidence for that accusation more telling that none of the youth's were charged with armed robbery and there were no stolen objects in their truck. He was found not guilty of murder he can still be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter if the prosecution decides to try again..
  10. Gingerteeth
    The only crime they comitted was smashing a truck window at the second place before Stanley's and even then nothing was removed from there. And possibly drunk driving going by to other youth's statement. It also isn't going to help Stanley's case anyways since he has no knowledge of those events when the truck pulled up in his driveway.
  11. Gingerteeth
    You have proved my point by posting a history article from wikipedia.
  12. Gingerteeth
    What is lost by the removal of the statue? The knowledge there is about him exists in books and internet.
  13. Gingerteeth
    Removing a statue of a person isn't a removal of history.
  14. Gingerteeth
    I always know you lost the argument when you start making strawman arguments and red herrings rather than maturely discussing the topic.
  15. Gingerteeth
    If the UN sees it as valid it is valid. What the US or Lebanon thinks is irrelevant.
  16. Gingerteeth
    Doesn't matter where the term came from. Palestinian's land claims are recognized as valid, as are Jewish land claims, by the UN.
  17. Gingerteeth
    The jury found there was reasonable doubt that Mr.Stanley meant to kill Mr. boushie to fit the charge of second degree murder. If he was charge under manslaughter or negligent homicide the outcome would most likely be different.
  18. Gingerteeth
    It is protected under the charter people are free to believe and I agree with that.
  19. Gingerteeth
    Your question is still loaded and your penchant to keep repeating it like a brain dead parrot isn't helping your position. Ask appropriately and I will answer.
  20. Gingerteeth
    Go back and find where I said I want to get rid of religion. Your question is loaded.
  21. Gingerteeth
    1. Sure they do just like I have to respect a religious person's belief that abortion is murder I cannot discriminate against them for that as they are free to believe as gauranteed by the charter. They have to do the same for my belief that womem have rights over their body or else they are discriminating against me. 2. Have you stopped hitting your wife? Would violate reproductive rights. Belief that women have a right to abortion doesn't violate your rights. Your belief that women shouldn't have a right to their reproductive choices does violate women's rights. The SCC's ruling allows womem to have abortions that is what the government must follow.
  22. Gingerteeth
    My money as well which I don't want it to go to groups who want roll back rights for people. Doesn't need to be a charter right to be a right. It is a right afforded by the SCC.
  23. Gingerteeth
    1. Organizations, religious or not, have to respect people's rights. Doesn't matter if the charter affords it or not. 2. Have you stopped hitting your wife?
  24. Gingerteeth
    They are disallowed from recieving funding if they refuse to follow the charter and reproductive rights. Has nothing to do with wanting to ban religion which I am obviously not advocating for.
  25. Gingerteeth
    Nonsense my point is still the same. The organizations wanting funding still have to respect charter rights and reproductive rights as I have said above. What the court limits has nothing to do with what I said. Religious people aren't prevented from expressing themselves or holding opinions. They just can't use funding to violate rights of others and their summer students.
×
×
  • Create New...