You're really overdramatising this. If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too, and the BBC won't give a fuck. I'm not allowing more one rule for them, another for everyone else.
Especially when lives can be in danger. If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched (We have seen the feminist escalation towards violence recently, and of course we can't forget that there have been female IS plotters.) are we allowed to blame the people who thought this was a bad thing for those lost lives?
Well, I'm not. I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
Having female leaders fairly recently? Having weak and useless conservatives?
Excuse me? You initially claimed that this was a 'murder', then you realized that the kid was not actually dead. You also claimed that it was definitely a boy, because the wimminz threw it in the trash, and even though I explained to you that far more girls get murdered as children than boys, you branded that as just propaganda - because TheImpossible may not have evidence, but he knows in his heart that it is true.
It turns out, of course, that it was completely bogus. That unlike your rabid gender obsessions, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. And that the kid did not actually die.
If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too,
I think you get your 'knowledge' from television.
If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched
Impressive job with equating not penetrating someone with 'not searching'.
I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
You don't even know these people. But based on one characteristic, you've already decided what their character is. For some reason, you manage to recognize that this is rather stupid when people do it with the JOOOOOOOZ, but you can't quite see the log in your own eyes.
Having female leaders fairly recently?
And this case has nothing whatsoever to do with feeeeeeeemale leaders... except that you tried to jump from people you did not know to people you do.
Yeah well, I had a theory that when the gender is omitted, it's a sign that it's a bad look for our worse halves. It actually worked last time I saw a BBC article, a few days ago. I predicted the murderer of a man was a woman based on the suspect being conveniently not identified by their gender, where if it was a man they'd be constantly mentioning it. 14 year old girl did it. Sick world we live in.
Can't say I have an experience of it, but cavity searches are a thing.
Well, four characteristics, actually. They are young, which makes them likely to be left-wing. They are from either Australia, New Zealand or the UK, which makes them more likely to hold the kind of female supremacist beliefs that are accepted in those countries. They are female, which makes them even more likely to hold those beliefs. They mentioned sexism, which makes it almost certain.
Well, what else do those three countries have in common? The Queen?
You're really overdramatising this. If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too, and the BBC won't give a fuck. I'm not allowing more one rule for them, another for everyone else.
Especially when lives can be in danger. If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched (We have seen the feminist escalation towards violence recently, and of course we can't forget that there have been female IS plotters.) are we allowed to blame the people who thought this was a bad thing for those lost lives?
Well, I'm not. I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
Having female leaders fairly recently? Having weak and useless conservatives?
Excuse me? You initially claimed that this was a 'murder', then you realized that the kid was not actually dead. You also claimed that it was definitely a boy, because the wimminz threw it in the trash, and even though I explained to you that far more girls get murdered as children than boys, you branded that as just propaganda - because TheImpossible may not have evidence, but he knows in his heart that it is true.
It turns out, of course, that it was completely bogus. That unlike your rabid gender obsessions, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. And that the kid did not actually die.
I think you get your 'knowledge' from television.
Impressive job with equating not penetrating someone with 'not searching'.
You don't even know these people. But based on one characteristic, you've already decided what their character is. For some reason, you manage to recognize that this is rather stupid when people do it with the JOOOOOOOZ, but you can't quite see the log in your own eyes.
And this case has nothing whatsoever to do with feeeeeeeemale leaders... except that you tried to jump from people you did not know to people you do.
Yeah well, I had a theory that when the gender is omitted, it's a sign that it's a bad look for our worse halves. It actually worked last time I saw a BBC article, a few days ago. I predicted the murderer of a man was a woman based on the suspect being conveniently not identified by their gender, where if it was a man they'd be constantly mentioning it. 14 year old girl did it. Sick world we live in.
Can't say I have an experience of it, but cavity searches are a thing.
Well, four characteristics, actually. They are young, which makes them likely to be left-wing. They are from either Australia, New Zealand or the UK, which makes them more likely to hold the kind of female supremacist beliefs that are accepted in those countries. They are female, which makes them even more likely to hold those beliefs. They mentioned sexism, which makes it almost certain.
Well, what else do those three countries have in common? The Queen?