darklighter1 : Contains spoilers. Click to show. Good show. Watched season 2 and 3 back to back after giving up on season one and was surpr...
random000 : Not a high mark for anyone involved.
Steppenwolf71 : Trashola...
kerfy : another remake. "modernized".. lol I preffer the movie..
random000 : Saw this last year. Didn't deliver. A year later it still doesn't deliver.
yellow_rose1 : Even though it was inevitable. I am in utter disbelief that this could happen in a first ...
kerfy : another remake. "modernized".. lol I preffer the movie..
Danfis : They need to remove the comedy tag. Seriously, in no way shape or form could this be consi...
chugga : polyglot but right!!
dickgrimes : Loved this Romantic/Thriller, her laugh alone is captivating 🤣
f you say that something is a textbook case or example, you are emphasizing that it provides a clear example of a type of situation or event. illegally blocking traffic to intimidate people in order to achieve political gain is a clear textbook example of terrorism. but you KNOW that and are just trying to set up a straw man. Ergo if you can only attack the messenger or the verbiage then you have no true rebuttal to the argument. Basically you have just admitted my statement was in fact valid and are saying you no longer have any useful input. goodbye and have a nice day.
I completely understand what a textbook example is. Which is why I was wondering if you were using the term literally, because it doesn’t apply figuratively, in my opinion. I’m kinda confused why you’d get so upset at me discussing semantics with you after you already devolved this conversation by trying to explain away the hundreds of white nationalist terrorism murders as “mass murder”. Do you not enjoy discussion? In fact based on your logic you’ve admitted that BLM is correct to call out the racist murders by their fellow citizens, and you’re just attacking the messenger because you have no rebuttal to their points on race inequality.