|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 14, 2017 18:37:58 GMT
Funnily enough Krishnan's colleague Gary Gibbons still hasn't replied to me regarding his source that "Team Trump would have briefed Mrs May about the travel ban". I couldn't possibly answer on Gary Gibbons' behalf, Todger, but maybe - just maybe - he's too busy reporting on stuff to answer individual saddos like you who spend their entire lives arguing online with people they've never met in real life As in, maybe he has actual work to do. Radical I realise but as a committed Tory I'm sure you understand and respect the value of hard work Props for winning the "Alan Partridge Statement of the Week Award" though Ah that's right... "reporting on stuff" and then broadcasting to people he's never met in real life. "Actual work" not something most of us 'normal' people associate with journo's.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 14, 2017 18:40:26 GMT
There's dressing up and there's dressing up Ricki. Guru-Murthy asking the same question 3 times ain't being "quizzed by the media". Full stop. You talk about logic but you have none. The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours. Question. Did you actually write to your own MP as part of the 'blacklash' ?? Thought not. I didn't write to mine either. I bet very, very few did. How do you equate these statistics with a backlash? I've just deleting your latest. I'm sure I've heard it before. Round, sphere, circular...... round and round...... head back now Ricki.....
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 14, 2017 23:04:06 GMT
I've just deleting your latest. I'm sure I've heard it before. Round, sphere, circular...... round and round...... head back now Ricki..... Yeah either I'm not articulating myself very well or you're just not getting it, either way I'm bored of going round and round with you.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 9:39:03 GMT
"From refugees to women’s rights, 45-year-old Mr Trudeau and 70-year-old Mr Trump are often diametrically opposed. But the Canadian PM did his utmost not to ruffle any feathers as Mr Trump repeated his mantra of Mexican wall building and the perceived dangers of immigration." ".... Mr Trudeau attempted to mend relations by emphasising the "deep abiding respect" between the two countries." Doesn't sound like he's publicly opposing Trump's immigration ban ........ What ? No backlash ? The Independent
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 15, 2017 10:58:32 GMT
"From refugees to women’s rights, 45-year-old Mr Trudeau and 70-year-old Mr Trump are often diametrically opposed. But the Canadian PM did his utmost not to ruffle any feathers as Mr Trump repeated his mantra of Mexican wall building and the perceived dangers of immigration." ".... Mr Trudeau attempted to mend relations by emphasising the "deep abiding respect" between the two countries." Doesn't sound like he's publicly opposing Trump's immigration ban ........ What ? No backlash ? The IndependentHang on rog, I thought that yesterday you were saying there was no backlash against May. Why do you seem so surprised that there is no backlash against Trudeau when, according to you, there was no backlash against May?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 11:17:40 GMT
"From refugees to women’s rights, 45-year-old Mr Trudeau and 70-year-old Mr Trump are often diametrically opposed. But the Canadian PM did his utmost not to ruffle any feathers as Mr Trump repeated his mantra of Mexican wall building and the perceived dangers of immigration." ".... Mr Trudeau attempted to mend relations by emphasising the "deep abiding respect" between the two countries." Doesn't sound like he's publicly opposing Trump's immigration ban ........ What ? No backlash ? The IndependentHang on rog, I thought that yesterday you were saying there was no backlash against May. Why do you seem so surprised that there is no backlash against Trudeau when, according to you, there was no backlash against May? Yet again you're incorrect. What I actually said was....... "The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours." So, "not ruffling feathers" and "deep abiding respect" is better than "Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government. But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking." and "special relationship". How exactly? Is Milliband tweeting that Trudeau needs to get on the phone now? Are any of the MSM criticising Trudeau at all? Is Guru-Murthy repeating a question to Trudeau? Is Rick Grimes declaring a "backlash" ? No? Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 15, 2017 12:20:50 GMT
Hang on rog, I thought that yesterday you were saying there was no backlash against May. Why do you seem so surprised that there is no backlash against Trudeau when, according to you, there was no backlash against May? Yet again you're incorrect. What I actually said was....... "The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours." So, "not ruffling feathers" and "deep abiding respect" is better than "special relationship" and "Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government. But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking." How exactly? Is Milliband tweeting that the Trudeau needs to get on the phone now? Are any of the MSM criticising Trudeau at all? Is Guru-Murthy repeating a question to Trudeau? Is Rick Grimes declaring a "backlash" ? No? Interesting. "The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours"
Correct you did say that, prior to that you also said ......... "The only 'backlash' as you say was made up by precious Liberals who think the speed of a tweet is a measure of morality."
And when I said it wasn't just precious liberals you said ....... "I wasn't labelling May's critics per se as 'precious Liberals'."
You then went on to say........ "THERE WASN'T A REAL BACKLASH. It was knee jerk, soundbite reporting. Which the Anyone but May brigade swallowed."
You do yourself, and your argument a great disservice by looking down your nose at anyone who criticised May for not initially condemning the ban, suggesting that they are unable to think for themselves, and are just simply repeating the media, politicians and that they must belong to the 'Anyone but May' brigade. Sure some people will fall into the catergories you mention but not everyone.
Regarding your other questions, I'd suggest that Canadian politicians and MSM who disagree with the ban didn't pay much, if any attention to what the British PM has said for obvious reasons that I really don't think need explaining to someone as intelligent as yourself. You're better than that.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 13:06:54 GMT
Yet again you're incorrect. What I actually said was....... "The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours." So, "not ruffling feathers" and "deep abiding respect" is better than "special relationship" and "Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government. But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking." How exactly? Is Milliband tweeting that the Trudeau needs to get on the phone now? Are any of the MSM criticising Trudeau at all? Is Guru-Murthy repeating a question to Trudeau? Is Rick Grimes declaring a "backlash" ? No? Interesting. "The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours"
Correct you did say that, prior to that you also said ......... "The only 'backlash' as you say was made up by precious Liberals who think the speed of a tweet is a measure of morality."
And when I said it wasn't just precious liberals you said ....... "I wasn't labelling May's critics per se as 'precious Liberals'."
You then went on to say........ "THERE WASN'T A REAL BACKLASH. It was knee jerk, soundbite reporting. Which the Anyone but May brigade swallowed."
You do yourself, and your argument a great disservice by looking down your nose at anyone who criticised May for not initially condemning the ban, suggesting that they are unable to think for themselves, and are just simply repeating the media, politicians and that they must belong to the 'Anyone but May' brigade. Sure some people will fall into the catergories you mention but not everyone.
Regarding your other questions, I'd suggest that Canadian politicians and MSM who disagree with the ban didn't pay much, if any attention to what the British PM has said for obvious reasons that I really don't think need explaining to someone as intelligent as yourself. You're better than that. Not just a circular arguments but actually cutting and pasting from previous posts. God this is tedious. So I really must stop. So this is what happened. Channel 4 ask May a question 3 times which they think allows them to write "ducked the issue" or "avoided the question" or in your case "quizzed by the media" type comments. Other media outlets repeat the same story. Politicians get involved tweeting for action and saying this is disgraceful etc, etc. You and yours go viral on social media condemning May. The media then report a "U-turn" from No. 10 after a "backlash" to her remarks or lack of them when they issue a fuller statement. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SO FAR? Trudeau visits Trump and it's reported that he's "not to ruffle any feathers" and there's "deep abiding respect" between Canada and the US. Channel 4 didn't ask him 3 times why he has not publicly condemned Trump's immigration policy. Other MSM outlets don't print headlines asking why the closest neighbour to the US and a self proclaimed open-border, feminist Leader hasn't spoken out against Trump's immigration ban. The Corbyn's and Milliband's of the World don't take to twitter to show their Liberal outrage followed by you and yours. You decry May for her responses or even the timings of her responses but champion Trudeau as some beacon of humanity. But here's the thing. As yet Trudeau has not publicly criticised Trump on his immigration policy. Prime Minister May has.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 15, 2017 13:13:29 GMT
All this thread needs now is for Rick to say "Perhaps Trudeau criticised Trump's immigration policy in private"
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 15, 2017 13:24:37 GMT
"The 'backlash' was started by the media, reported by the media, repeated by politicians and then believed and repeated and argued for by you and yours"
Correct you did say that, prior to that you also said ......... "The only 'backlash' as you say was made up by precious Liberals who think the speed of a tweet is a measure of morality."
And when I said it wasn't just precious liberals you said ....... "I wasn't labelling May's critics per se as 'precious Liberals'."
You then went on to say........ "THERE WASN'T A REAL BACKLASH. It was knee jerk, soundbite reporting. Which the Anyone but May brigade swallowed."
You do yourself, and your argument a great disservice by looking down your nose at anyone who criticised May for not initially condemning the ban, suggesting that they are unable to think for themselves, and are just simply repeating the media, politicians and that they must belong to the 'Anyone but May' brigade. Sure some people will fall into the catergories you mention but not everyone.
Regarding your other questions, I'd suggest that Canadian politicians and MSM who disagree with the ban didn't pay much, if any attention to what the British PM has said for obvious reasons that I really don't think need explaining to someone as intelligent as yourself. You're better than that. Not just a circular arguments but actually cutting and pasting from previous posts. God this is tedious. So I really must stop. So this is what happened. Channel 4 ask May a question 3 times which they think allows them to write "ducked the issue" or "avoided the question" or in your case "quizzed by the media" type comments. Other media outlets repeat the same story. Politicians get involved tweeting for action and saying this is disgraceful etc, etc. You and yours go viral on social media condemning May. The media then report a "U-turn" from No. 10 after a "backlash" to her remarks or lack of them when they issue a fuller statement. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SO FAR? Trudeau visits Trump and it's reported that he's "not to ruffle any feathers" and there's "deep abiding respect" between Canada and the US. Channel 4 didn't ask him 3 times why he has not publicly condemned Trump's immigration policy. Other MSM outlets don't print headlines asking why the closest neighbour to the US and a self proclaimed open-border, feminist Leader hasn't spoken out against Trump's immigration ban. The Corbyn's and Milliband's of the World don't take to twitter to show their Liberal outrage followed by you and yours. You decry May for her responses or even the timings of her responses but champion Trudeau as some beacon of humanity. But here's the thing. As yet Trudeau has not publicly criticised Trump on his immigration policy. Prime Minister May has.I'll keep it short and sweet. The British media, some British politicians and some of the British people criticised May because she represents them. Trudeau doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 14:02:49 GMT
Not just a circular arguments but actually cutting and pasting from previous posts. God this is tedious. So I really must stop. So this is what happened. Channel 4 ask May a question 3 times which they think allows them to write "ducked the issue" or "avoided the question" or in your case "quizzed by the media" type comments. Other media outlets repeat the same story. Politicians get involved tweeting for action and saying this is disgraceful etc, etc. You and yours go viral on social media condemning May. The media then report a "U-turn" from No. 10 after a "backlash" to her remarks or lack of them when they issue a fuller statement. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SO FAR? Trudeau visits Trump and it's reported that he's "not to ruffle any feathers" and there's "deep abiding respect" between Canada and the US. Channel 4 didn't ask him 3 times why he has not publicly condemned Trump's immigration policy. Other MSM outlets don't print headlines asking why the closest neighbour to the US and a self proclaimed open-border, feminist Leader hasn't spoken out against Trump's immigration ban. The Corbyn's and Milliband's of the World don't take to twitter to show their Liberal outrage followed by you and yours. You decry May for her responses or even the timings of her responses but champion Trudeau as some beacon of humanity. But here's the thing. As yet Trudeau has not publicly criticised Trump on his immigration policy. Prime Minister May has.I'll keep it short and sweet. The British media, some British politicians and some of the British people criticised May because she represents them. Trudeau doesn't. Bollocks. If Trudeau doesn't 'represent' you then why did you post his tweet on here? Actually don't bother replying. I'm bored now.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 15, 2017 14:43:24 GMT
I'll keep it short and sweet. The British media, some British politicians and some of the British people criticised May because she represents them. Trudeau doesn't. Bollocks. If Trudeau doesn't 'represent' you then why did you post his tweet on here? Actually don't bother replying. I'm bored now. I'm not the one who bought Trudeau into this discussion though am I You did with your usual whatabouttery/strawman nonsense that I was stupid enough to get sucked into
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 16:08:28 GMT
Bollocks. If Trudeau doesn't 'represent' you then why did you post his tweet on here? Actually don't bother replying. I'm bored now. I'm not the one who bought Trudeau into this discussion though am I You did with your usual whatabouttery/strawman nonsense that I was stupid enough to get sucked into Doesn't matter who brought Trudeau into the discussion. Yesterday you criticised May for the timings of her comments regarding Trump and regurgitated a media generated 'backlash' story. Today you don't criticise Trudeau who hasn't publicly condemned Trump's policy. In fact you applaud him by quoting some virtue signalling tweet. You're twisting like a snake on a spike. Round and round.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Feb 15, 2017 16:24:29 GMT
B.B.C. website: "The intercepted communications were said to be between Trump campaign officials and other associates on the one hand, and Russian intelligence and government officials on the other." Trumpski's campaign during an American election in contact with America's No.1 enemy!
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 15, 2017 16:25:25 GMT
Now you've done it, Rog. You've gone & used 'virtue-signalling', you're going to get MickMills on your case now
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 15, 2017 16:39:13 GMT
Trudeau criticised Trump from afar, then acted more diplomatically when he met Trump.
May did not criticise Trump from afar, then acted diplomatically when she met Trump.
I would've preferred Trudeau to have gone to the White House and kicked the Braindead One in the balls, but he has still done more than May to criticise Trump. Maybe you don't feel Trump should be criticised for his actions, which is fair enough - each to their own. But lets not pretend May and Trudeau have been equally critical/friendly to Trump - one has condemmend the travel ban (and other policies), and one hasn't.
And the reason British MPs aren't up in arms about Trudeau is because they're not paid to put pressure on the Canadian Prime Minister. May response directly affects British MPs and British people, Trudeau's doesn't.
It's the same logic why we shrug our shoulders at a terrorist attack in Africa or the Middle East but mourn attacks in the US, Europe or other countries we have close relations with - there is a sense (real or perceived) that the events are closer (geographically or politcally) to us.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Feb 15, 2017 16:45:26 GMT
Trudeau criticised Trump from afar, then acted more diplomatically when he met Trump. May did not criticise Trump from afar, then acted diplomatically when she met Trump.I would've preferred Trudeau to have gone to the White House and kicked the Braindead One in the balls, but he has still done more than May to criticise Trump. Maybe you don't feel Trump should be criticised for his actions, which is fair enough - each to their own. But lets not pretend May and Trudeau have been equally critical/friendly to Trump - one has condemmend the travel ban (and other policies), and one hasn't. And the reason British MPs aren't up in arms about Trudeau is because they're not paid to put pressure on the Canadian Prime Minister. May response directly affects British MPs and British people, Trudeau's doesn't. It's the same logic why we shrug our shoulders at a terrorist attack in Africa or the Middle East but mourn attacks in the US, Europe or other countries we have close relations with - there is a sense (real or perceived) that the events are closer (geographically or politcally) to us. Trump didn't announce his travel ban until after May's visit, Rip.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 15, 2017 16:53:00 GMT
Trudeau criticised Trump from afar, then acted more diplomatically when he met Trump. May did not criticise Trump from afar, then acted diplomatically when she met Trump. I would've preferred Trudeau to have gone to the White House and kicked the Braindead One in the balls, but he has still done more than May to criticise Trump. Maybe you don't feel Trump should be criticised for his actions, which is fair enough - each to their own. But lets not pretend May and Trudeau have been equally critical/friendly to Trump - one has condemmend the travel ban (and other policies), and one hasn't. And the reason British MPs aren't up in arms about Trudeau is because they're not paid to put pressure on the Canadian Prime Minister. May response directly affects British MPs and British people, Trudeau's doesn't. It's the same logic why we shrug our shoulders at a terrorist attack in Africa or the Middle East but mourn attacks in the US, Europe or other countries we have close relations with - there is a sense (real or perceived) that the events are closer (geographically or politcally) to us. Please post the link of Trudeau criticising Trump's immigration policy.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 15, 2017 17:52:59 GMT
I'm not the one who bought Trudeau into this discussion though am I You did with your usual whatabouttery/strawman nonsense that I was stupid enough to get sucked into Doesn't matter who brought Trudeau into the discussion. Yesterday you criticised May for the timings of her comments regarding Trump and regurgitated a media generated 'backlash' story. Today you don't criticise Trudeau who hasn't publicly condemned Trump's policy. In fact you applaud him by quoting some virtue signalling tweet. You're twisting like a snake on a spike. Round and round. Nah. Trudeau isn't relevant to my overall point on May because he's not my Prime Minister therefore my expectations aren't the same. I should have made this point way earlier instead of getting sucked in by your whatabouttery nonsense that you and FYD are so fond of. You bought Trudeau into this conversation so lets go right back to your original point ......... "I wonder if the same May bashers will be as vitriolic towards Trudeau......"Why would the 'same May bashers' be as vitriolic towards Trudeau? Why would the British media, British politicians and some of the British people be as vitriolic towards Trudeau? 1) 'vitriolic' doesn't even come close to describing what went on in reality. Whilst there was condemnation of May's initial response, the bulk of the responses were far from vitriolic with the exception of few wrong'uns. 2) No the BRITISH media, BRITISH politicians and some of the BRITISH people are not going to be as 'vitriolic', as you term it, towards Trudeau because he's not their Prime Minister and he doesn't represent them. It's actually a pretty silly thing to 'wonder' when the answer is blatantly obvious. Separately from this there are a few further points - Trudeau's initial response that I quoted was posted alongside a photo of him welcoming a refugee child at an airport, pretty smart move really and as a result he's faced far less criticism from his own people because they know exactly what he stands for. - The same couldn't be said for May following her initial response, because it wasn't clear if she was for or against it, when she did make stance clear the criticism leveled at her quickly fizzled out. - Despite this some Canadians are disappointed that Trudeau didn't take a tougher line against Trump, from the the news reports I've seen Canadian expectations are slightly more tempered than their British counterparts due to the fact that Canada rely massively on the US in terms of trade so it could really do them some economical damage if they annoy 'The Donald'. - On a personal level it's disappointing that both May and Trudeau have likely had to put their principles to one side because the US is now critical to both countries from an economic standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 16, 2017 7:56:10 GMT
Trudeau criticised Trump from afar, then acted more diplomatically when he met Trump. May did not criticise Trump from afar, then acted diplomatically when she met Trump. I would've preferred Trudeau to have gone to the White House and kicked the Braindead One in the balls, but he has still done more than May to criticise Trump. Maybe you don't feel Trump should be criticised for his actions, which is fair enough - each to their own. But lets not pretend May and Trudeau have been equally critical/friendly to Trump - one has condemmend the travel ban (and other policies), and one hasn't. And the reason British MPs aren't up in arms about Trudeau is because they're not paid to put pressure on the Canadian Prime Minister. May response directly affects British MPs and British people, Trudeau's doesn't. It's the same logic why we shrug our shoulders at a terrorist attack in Africa or the Middle East but mourn attacks in the US, Europe or other countries we have close relations with - there is a sense (real or perceived) that the events are closer (geographically or politcally) to us. Please post the link of Trudeau criticising Trump's immigration policy. globalnews.ca/news/3212041/justin-trudeau-refugees-donald-trump-travel-ban/amp/
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 16, 2017 9:16:48 GMT
Yeah Ricki's already posted that tweet. Doesn't say criticise, Trump, don't agree, etc, etc. Here are a few. The first two are from your source. Trudeau dodges criticising Trump "France’s visiting prime minister plunged head-first Thursday into next month’s U.S. presidential election..... while host Justin Trudeau was barely willing to get his feet wet." Trudeau avoids criticising Trump travel ban "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has again avoided directly criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump, most recently side-stepping questions about the president’s travel ban." Justin Trudeau, Facing Pressure to Oppose Donald Trump, Opts to Get Along - NYTimes "At news conferences, Mr. Trudeau, who describes himself as a feminist, is often asked if Mr. Trump is a misogynist. His response is always similar. “It is not the job of a Canadian prime minister to opine on the American electoral process,” Why didn't Trudeau stand up to Trump on travel ban? It's the economy, stupid - The Guardian “The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves, Trudeau told reporters at a joint press conference, after standing by as Trump gave an unapologetic defence of his controversial travel ban."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 16, 2017 10:55:41 GMT
Back to Trump ........
- Since 2006 Trump has sought to trademark his brand in China but kept losing in court - After winning the presidency Trump caused a stir by rejecting the 'One China' policy which upset the Chinese Government - Then last week Trump changes his mind says he's committed to 'One China' - Yesterday China change their mind and award Trump a trademark
Complete coincedence or enoulument?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 16, 2017 12:48:56 GMT
Back to Trump ........ - Since 2006 Trump has sought to trademark his brand in China but kept losing in court - After winning the presidency Trump caused a stir by rejecting the 'One China' policy which upset the Chinese Government - Then last week Trump changes his mind says he's committed to 'One China' - Yesterday China change their mind and award Trump a trademark Complete coincedence or enoulument? I haven't read The Art of the Deal yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's guidance on refusing before accepting as bargaining positions change. Especially if the Chinese delegate is called He Say No and they refer to Trump as Tuff Koo Qi.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 17, 2017 15:46:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 17, 2017 15:55:47 GMT
"The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 national guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants." ----- "That order also allows immigration agents to prioritize removing anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense”."
So he wants to kickout illegal immigrants who've commited crimes. What a horrible, horrible man. How dare he put the people who're there legally & have commited no crimes first. Literally Hitler!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 17, 2017 15:57:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 17, 2017 16:11:13 GMT
He's rounding them up.
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Feb 17, 2017 16:26:14 GMT
The left-wing mob are becoming truely hysterical. This has got to be the best one so far... Some of the replies are a pisser Superb illustration of how idiotic some of these crusading celebs can be, has JK Rowling announced how many refugees she's taking into her home yet??????
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 17, 2017 16:50:24 GMT
Superb illustration of how idiotic some of these crusading celebs can be, has JK Rowling announced how many refugees she's taking into her home yet?????? She'll be taking the same ammount as the rest of the people named in this video. It's so easy to score brownie points on social media, but when push comes to shove...
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 18, 2017 0:59:32 GMT
Superb illustration of how idiotic some of these crusading celebs can be, has JK Rowling announced how many refugees she's taking into her home yet?????? She'll be taking the same ammount as the rest of the people named in this video. It's so easy to score brownie points on social media, but when push comes to shove... Geldof is worth $150m...?! Where's that come from I wonder...
|
|