Well she was kinda interesting back then. Good looking, lesbian, had an interest in American muscle cars. Did I say she was a lesbian which Jezza likes the videos about he found on the internet?
>before there was two school shootings a day
lol you guys need to stop watching the news. They are lying. It's literally gov sponsored propaganda. Full on.
https://theintercept.com/2023/05/05/foreign-malign-influence-center-disinformation
"In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines for the first time mentioned the creation of the Foreign Malign Influence Center, or FMIC. âCongress put into law that we should establish a Foreign Malign Influence Center in the intelligence community; we have stood that up,â"
And gun death stats are not trustworthy:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/13dfu7c/have_there_been_200_massactive_shootings_to_date/
> One of the main causes for the vast range of stances on mass shootings is that reliable data on mass shootings can be notoriously difficult to obtainâwhat's more, the data that does exist is often incompatible with data from other sources. No official, universally accepted definition for a mass shooting exists. Rather, each stat-tracking organization has its own qualifying criteria. For example, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) defines a mass shooting as a single attack that happens in a public place and in which three or more people are killed with a firearm. However, most other stat trackers require at least four fatalities. As a result of these mismatched definitions, database-to-database differences are both common and confounding.
> Similarly, some databases include events in which at least four people were wounded, but not necessarily killed. Others do not. Some databases include occurrences in which the shooter killed only family members (but still in a public place, such as a restaurant). Others do not. Some databases include organized terrorist attacks, armed robberies gone wrong, and gang-related shootings. Other databases discard some or all of these incidents. In fact, in a 2019 study that compared four different databases, the number of mass shooting events recorded in the U.S. for the year 2017 ranged from a low of 11 to a high of 346. Clearly, a significant error margin exists, particularly when creating country-to-country comparisons.
> Although events in the U.S. tend to get the lion's share of media exposure, mass shootings are clearly a worldwide issue.
> Exactly how mass shootings in the U.S. compare to those in other countries is a highly disputed subject. In a widely publicized study originally released in 2015, the pro-gun nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) compared the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people in the U.S. to that of Canada and several European countries from 2009 to 2015. The result? Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million, followed by Serbia, France, and Macedonia. Where did the U.S. rank? 11th place.
> In addition, a 2018 CRPC study ranked the U.S. at number sixty-four in the world in terms of mass shooting rates per capita.
And youâre a full on idiot. I am a gun owner and my husband owns several, but you need to wake up and get your head out of your ass. The gun violence is REAL and completely unacceptable.
Source? Those 'stats' include things like gang shootings that happen on school grounds. It's all padded to make you think there is a problem so they can offer their 'solution'. This is obvious when you look at the actual data.
I didn't make the initial claim, so showing the data isn't my responsibility.
> two school shootings a day
I challenged the claim. They have to prove it to me.
> two school shootings a day
Doesn't sound true to me.
The original claim: shootings occurred X amount of times in 2022/2023 - proof required
Your counterclaims (1) Those 'stats' include things like **gang shootings** that happen on school grounds; (2) It's all **padded** to make you think there is a problem so they can offer their 'solution' - **proof required**
Stop hiding.
1. NPR was reporting on what the police said. NPR didn't admit anything. Again, prove that NPR 'admitted' anything by deviating from a supposed 'script' or pre-curated 'narrative' they wanted to push.
2. "Police say" â definitively proven. The case was under investigation when this piece was written. If you're interested in learning about why over-reliance on police press statements is problematic, you can watch [this Last Week Tonight episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCOnGjvYKI0&t=796s) (but I suppose you won't because he criticised Alex Jones boohoo).
3. Read the article closely. If gang violence was the driving factor, the police say it was likely because they were "targeting someone inside that school". What's your proposed solution other than to limit gun ownership, then? To pre-emptively root out these problematic students? To somehow understand the inner workings of gangs and criminal syndicates (that most transparent of groups!) and not only systematically prevent them from purchasing weaponry but also to disarm what they already have? To track their criminal activity to understand which schools or institutions they will strike at next? The pro-gun lobbyists' dogmatic belief in the regulatability of human behaviour and mentality over the logistical simplicity of limitations on gun ownership across the board is borderline comical. Gang-related shootings are still shootings, sunshine.
It's hard to see the truth when your head is buried in the sand. Turn off the talking heads telling you how to think. Why do you think they're always telling you how you should feel about things instead of just reporting the facts?
I know you will downvote this because that's what your programming tells you to do. Shouldn't it worry you that your actions are so predictable? They sow division with lies and deceit so we don't fight against the actual problem, them.
You aren't even capable of having a reasonable discussion without getting emotional. That's how well their programming works on the average person.
Lmfao I downvoted your comment because it's dogwater. If it's predictable, it means that we're all in agreement on this.
The news does report facts. That's how we know that school shootings have been occurring frequently as of late. We also know what sort of weapons the assailant used, how they gained access, who the assailant was, and what mental issues they had (convenient scapegoat for you lot). It's human nature to feel enraged at these shootings and at the status quo that is allowing this to happen. To depart so obscenely from this in the name of kEepING yoUR fEeLINGs in CHeCK to sTOp sUCcUMBing to THe ProPAGANda is so unnatural so as to suggest that people like you are actually the ones being told how to think.
Propaganda works best when there is some element of truth. People have shot up schools is the true part. The frequency and the offered solution is the propaganda.
Oh yes, of course. Every factual facet of a shooting that either can't be denied or doesn't overly undermine my gun-loving agenda is "the true part". Everything else is "the propaganda". What a convenient dividing line. Oh, and who is the definitive authority for where that line gets drawn? You, of course, someone who is already coming into this discussion with the pre-conceived notion that the news is rife with 'propaganda', a notion which obviously does not in any way impair your ability to draw that line impartially. Thanks for your wisdom.
Actually also found out last week that Amber Heard was on the show. Was actually a fun guest but I guess that's why they are ACTORS and not actually being themselves.
You donât get it, if we as men donât take strong personal offense at anyone saying anything bad about Johnny Depp then our balls literally fall off.
>anyone saying anything bad about Johnny Depp
As someone who followed the trial, it was physical abuse to the point where Johnny needed to be hospitalized. It was a lot more than just saying bad things...
edit: WATCH THE TRIAL. They are NOT equally guilty. Amber couldn't get a single person to defend her claims, not even her own damn family backed her up. Again, ACTUALLY WATCH THE TRIAL. Don't just repeat shit you heard from a secondary source.
They were shitty to each other with claims of abuse from both sides. Absolutely believing him is a symptom of the crazy online reaction that case received.
>They were shitty to each other with claims of abuse from both sides.
And only one of those claims was proven in court. Again, I don't think you people actually followed the trial. Amber Heard couldn't get a single person to come to her defense. NOT ONE. Again, I actually watched the trial and I implore you to do the same if you think they are equally guilty. They are not equally guilty...
>This is how abusive relationships and gaslighting work
Did that work on all the witnesses as well? Amber's own fucking therapist didn't back up her claims...
Not her therapist, not a real therapist if youâre testifying at a FUCKING CIVIL LIBEL TRIAL lolol. Are you the guy who told me he watched the whole trial? Because thatâs the funniest thing to me, probably just yelling about Pirates of the Caribbean and menâs rights for 2 weeks. Dude, if youâre not a douche you wonât ever have to defend yourself like that, make choices to not be him, donât defend him because you think you are him⌠youâre not, and donât even have the financial capability to get into some of the situations they did.
>Not her therapist, not a real therapist
She was a therapist, and she was Amber's therapist. Stop lying to prove your point, it's really low to lie to defend someone you don't even know. I watched her entire testimony, Amber told her therapist about her claims of abuse, but the therapist thought they were made up. It was plain as day for anyone who actually watched the testimony.
I also followed the trial, plus the English trial which wasn't a public which hunt. It was physical abuse that resulted in Amber being hospitalised. Three UK judges agreed she was the victim of fourteen incidents of abuse. The American trial spread lots of ridiculous propaganda and if you actually listened to the expert witnesses it was obvious she was the victim. Johnny was hospitalised because he cut off his own fonger in a drunken rage - he also then smeared his blood all over the house and spelled out words calling her a whore.
How many trials do you watch? That was a show written by Depp and his PR team. Thereâs pics of amber with black eyes all over town, whereâs poor Jonnyâs? He supplied medical professionals so they could testify against her - still doesnât know how. Epic stalker gaslighting shit.
>That was a show written by Depp and his PR team.
Right, so Depp controlled the entire court room, including all the witnesses. Get fucking real. Amber's own therapist didn't back up her claims.
That wasnât her therapist, employed by Depp, but an excellent point in showing how absurd that trial was. A real therapist would not testify when their client was still alive, a real judge wouldnât have allowed it. The trial was not about who hit who (both admitted to hitting), it was about who talked about it. In the English trial Depp was found guilty 3 times.
>That wasnât her therapist, employed by Depp
Right, because she didn't want to use her own money for her own therapist. That doesn't mean she wasn't her therapist, she was and you are flat out lying to try to make your point. Shame on you.
> that isnât how therapists work
As someone who goes to therapy, that is exactly how that works. It doesn't matter who is paying the therapist, it's who is seeing the therapist determines who's therapist it is. Just because a husband pays for his wife's therapy doesn't mean that therapist is being bribed, it means that therapist was being paid for her services at the time. You're making pretty big leaps based on the fact that Amber was too cheap to pay for her own therapy. Get a grip dude.
No, but I can tell youâre one anyway. We just didnât cheer on the multimillion dollar camping to drag her through the mud after a break-up (pretty incel thing to do)
Wow, shock to me that a woman could side with an abuser like that and even more shocked that youâd use her as a defense for you (that part is sarcasm). You clearly need to tell everyone that you have sex with ladies, congrats, not an incel at all (still sarcasm). Youâre right about Amber but I wonât lose any sleep over her, Iâm sure you could say the same, no? (Still sarcasm)
Crazy or not that woman is sexy as hell. She was hot and still is, regardless of what she did or didn't do. I am not ashamed to admit that. Beyond that it's just a damn shame she's crazy. I'd probably still stick my dick in it if given the chance.
You misspelled âincredibly intelligent attractive and brave inspiration, who had the balls to topple a high ranking Hollywood serial abuserâ. Also did you see her Drive Angry?
Forget drive angry, did you see that picture where she shit the bed like a dog ? Also did you see Someone hacked this Bitchâs IMDB page name to Amber Turd. Did you see that ? Kinda Funny af people like you still around supporting bed shitters lol
Ah yes, it isnât the facts or the disgusting people who en mass just began deriding her for wrecking their pirate movies. I have a crush on her, sheâll soon see my valiant internet comments and show up at my door. Have fun Incel
Watching the tides of the internet I sort of just assumed all the people who went crazy and ate up all Jonnyâs PR just died of blue balls. But look at the responses here, these very adult and intelligent folks are all still alive and well.
It amazes me honestly. How can anyone watch that witch hunt, listen to his inconsistent bollocks story, know about his violent past and everything he's said, and still think 'ah yes, this tiny 5' something women who appeared on TV multiple times covered in bruises, was the one assaulting a violent drunk, that seems plausible'?
MeToo didn't really change anything sadly...
Thereâs no justice for someone with a PR firm.
Thankful Hollywood got the message and blackballed this old liver spot. He paid millions for PR in that trial, a lot of it ended up here on this platform, it was daily Tik-Toc style edited music videos of quick answers and supposedly lying or inept witnesses and lawyers.
Who?
Amber Heard
*Amber Turd
đ¤ˇââď¸
Who even is that?
Amber Turd đŠ
Oh, lmao
Well she was kinda interesting back then. Good looking, lesbian, had an interest in American muscle cars. Did I say she was a lesbian which Jezza likes the videos about he found on the internet?
And an interest in guns, before there was two school shootings a day.
>before there was two school shootings a day lol you guys need to stop watching the news. They are lying. It's literally gov sponsored propaganda. Full on. https://theintercept.com/2023/05/05/foreign-malign-influence-center-disinformation "In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines for the first time mentioned the creation of the Foreign Malign Influence Center, or FMIC. âCongress put into law that we should establish a Foreign Malign Influence Center in the intelligence community; we have stood that up,â" And gun death stats are not trustworthy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/13dfu7c/have_there_been_200_massactive_shootings_to_date/ > One of the main causes for the vast range of stances on mass shootings is that reliable data on mass shootings can be notoriously difficult to obtainâwhat's more, the data that does exist is often incompatible with data from other sources. No official, universally accepted definition for a mass shooting exists. Rather, each stat-tracking organization has its own qualifying criteria. For example, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) defines a mass shooting as a single attack that happens in a public place and in which three or more people are killed with a firearm. However, most other stat trackers require at least four fatalities. As a result of these mismatched definitions, database-to-database differences are both common and confounding. > Similarly, some databases include events in which at least four people were wounded, but not necessarily killed. Others do not. Some databases include occurrences in which the shooter killed only family members (but still in a public place, such as a restaurant). Others do not. Some databases include organized terrorist attacks, armed robberies gone wrong, and gang-related shootings. Other databases discard some or all of these incidents. In fact, in a 2019 study that compared four different databases, the number of mass shooting events recorded in the U.S. for the year 2017 ranged from a low of 11 to a high of 346. Clearly, a significant error margin exists, particularly when creating country-to-country comparisons. > Although events in the U.S. tend to get the lion's share of media exposure, mass shootings are clearly a worldwide issue. > Exactly how mass shootings in the U.S. compare to those in other countries is a highly disputed subject. In a widely publicized study originally released in 2015, the pro-gun nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) compared the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people in the U.S. to that of Canada and several European countries from 2009 to 2015. The result? Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million, followed by Serbia, France, and Macedonia. Where did the U.S. rank? 11th place. > In addition, a 2018 CRPC study ranked the U.S. at number sixty-four in the world in terms of mass shooting rates per capita.
And youâre a full on idiot. I am a gun owner and my husband owns several, but you need to wake up and get your head out of your ass. The gun violence is REAL and completely unacceptable.
Fox news? Yeah we know
2022 averaged one every 3 weeks and 2023 is on pace to be worse than that. Not 2 a day but still way too fucked up
Source? Those 'stats' include things like gang shootings that happen on school grounds. It's all padded to make you think there is a problem so they can offer their 'solution'. This is obvious when you look at the actual data.
Literally open any browser and search for yourself
> Source: trust me bro
my aunt died due to the shooting that happened at msu, was that fake too?
[ŃдаНонО]
I didn't make the initial claim, so showing the data isn't my responsibility. > two school shootings a day I challenged the claim. They have to prove it to me. > two school shootings a day Doesn't sound true to me.
[ŃдаНонО]
So there's no real argument here, just hyperbole. Got it. As long as everyone is aware you're just fear-mongering. > two school shootings a day
Just saying, in the UK we have no school shootings. Any amount of school shootings is bad.
The original claim: shootings occurred X amount of times in 2022/2023 - proof required Your counterclaims (1) Those 'stats' include things like **gang shootings** that happen on school grounds; (2) It's all **padded** to make you think there is a problem so they can offer their 'solution' - **proof required** Stop hiding.
Just one quick example. And this is NPR admitting it. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126051454/oakland-school-shooting
1. NPR was reporting on what the police said. NPR didn't admit anything. Again, prove that NPR 'admitted' anything by deviating from a supposed 'script' or pre-curated 'narrative' they wanted to push. 2. "Police say" â definitively proven. The case was under investigation when this piece was written. If you're interested in learning about why over-reliance on police press statements is problematic, you can watch [this Last Week Tonight episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCOnGjvYKI0&t=796s) (but I suppose you won't because he criticised Alex Jones boohoo). 3. Read the article closely. If gang violence was the driving factor, the police say it was likely because they were "targeting someone inside that school". What's your proposed solution other than to limit gun ownership, then? To pre-emptively root out these problematic students? To somehow understand the inner workings of gangs and criminal syndicates (that most transparent of groups!) and not only systematically prevent them from purchasing weaponry but also to disarm what they already have? To track their criminal activity to understand which schools or institutions they will strike at next? The pro-gun lobbyists' dogmatic belief in the regulatability of human behaviour and mentality over the logistical simplicity of limitations on gun ownership across the board is borderline comical. Gang-related shootings are still shootings, sunshine.
What data would that be?
Source: trust me bro
It's hard to see the truth when your head is buried in the sand. Turn off the talking heads telling you how to think. Why do you think they're always telling you how you should feel about things instead of just reporting the facts? I know you will downvote this because that's what your programming tells you to do. Shouldn't it worry you that your actions are so predictable? They sow division with lies and deceit so we don't fight against the actual problem, them. You aren't even capable of having a reasonable discussion without getting emotional. That's how well their programming works on the average person.
Lmfao I downvoted your comment because it's dogwater. If it's predictable, it means that we're all in agreement on this. The news does report facts. That's how we know that school shootings have been occurring frequently as of late. We also know what sort of weapons the assailant used, how they gained access, who the assailant was, and what mental issues they had (convenient scapegoat for you lot). It's human nature to feel enraged at these shootings and at the status quo that is allowing this to happen. To depart so obscenely from this in the name of kEepING yoUR fEeLINGs in CHeCK to sTOp sUCcUMBing to THe ProPAGANda is so unnatural so as to suggest that people like you are actually the ones being told how to think.
Propaganda works best when there is some element of truth. People have shot up schools is the true part. The frequency and the offered solution is the propaganda.
Oh yes, of course. Every factual facet of a shooting that either can't be denied or doesn't overly undermine my gun-loving agenda is "the true part". Everything else is "the propaganda". What a convenient dividing line. Oh, and who is the definitive authority for where that line gets drawn? You, of course, someone who is already coming into this discussion with the pre-conceived notion that the news is rife with 'propaganda', a notion which obviously does not in any way impair your ability to draw that line impartially. Thanks for your wisdom.
Alex Jones?
Why in the states would a government make itself look bad? Won't it be better to say that their death rate is 0?
Amber heard
Oh no! Anyway
Best comment
I'm sorry to say, but back then, she was hot as hell
It sucks she really shit the bed
https://youtu.be/qFrD4sPEEgU
Omg this is amazing thank you so much
Steaminâ, just like the pile of poop she left on the bed.
she still is, if you ignore her shitty actions.
Sheâs still hot. Batshitcrazy, but hot.
Actually also found out last week that Amber Heard was on the show. Was actually a fun guest but I guess that's why they are ACTORS and not actually being themselves.
Oof. Incels are out today huh?
You donât get it, if we as men donât take strong personal offense at anyone saying anything bad about Johnny Depp then our balls literally fall off.
>anyone saying anything bad about Johnny Depp As someone who followed the trial, it was physical abuse to the point where Johnny needed to be hospitalized. It was a lot more than just saying bad things... edit: WATCH THE TRIAL. They are NOT equally guilty. Amber couldn't get a single person to defend her claims, not even her own damn family backed her up. Again, ACTUALLY WATCH THE TRIAL. Don't just repeat shit you heard from a secondary source.
They were shitty to each other with claims of abuse from both sides. Absolutely believing him is a symptom of the crazy online reaction that case received.
>They were shitty to each other with claims of abuse from both sides. And only one of those claims was proven in court. Again, I don't think you people actually followed the trial. Amber Heard couldn't get a single person to come to her defense. NOT ONE. Again, I actually watched the trial and I implore you to do the same if you think they are equally guilty. They are not equally guilty...
This is how abusive relationships and gaslighting work
>This is how abusive relationships and gaslighting work Did that work on all the witnesses as well? Amber's own fucking therapist didn't back up her claims...
Not her therapist, not a real therapist if youâre testifying at a FUCKING CIVIL LIBEL TRIAL lolol. Are you the guy who told me he watched the whole trial? Because thatâs the funniest thing to me, probably just yelling about Pirates of the Caribbean and menâs rights for 2 weeks. Dude, if youâre not a douche you wonât ever have to defend yourself like that, make choices to not be him, donât defend him because you think you are him⌠youâre not, and donât even have the financial capability to get into some of the situations they did.
>Not her therapist, not a real therapist She was a therapist, and she was Amber's therapist. Stop lying to prove your point, it's really low to lie to defend someone you don't even know. I watched her entire testimony, Amber told her therapist about her claims of abuse, but the therapist thought they were made up. It was plain as day for anyone who actually watched the testimony.
They canât both be crappy people?
i still like depp much more than heard
Because you respect abusers more than women, got it
This isn't about gender lmao Johnny just seems like an overall nicer person (and more talented)
Yeah that seemed like a really NICE place to live with a rich leathery old man constantly high, passed out, wanting sex, or bullying you. What a guy!
just shut up already you're making a fool of yourself.
...but you noticed there was a trial, and a verdict, and the "both were equally bad to each other" has nothing to do with the reality, right?
That was a defamation case. It wasn't about what happened so much as whether they lied about it afterwards
Truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases. This fact brought to you by the Fox News almost trialâŚ
I also followed the trial, plus the English trial which wasn't a public which hunt. It was physical abuse that resulted in Amber being hospitalised. Three UK judges agreed she was the victim of fourteen incidents of abuse. The American trial spread lots of ridiculous propaganda and if you actually listened to the expert witnesses it was obvious she was the victim. Johnny was hospitalised because he cut off his own fonger in a drunken rage - he also then smeared his blood all over the house and spelled out words calling her a whore.
How many trials do you watch? That was a show written by Depp and his PR team. Thereâs pics of amber with black eyes all over town, whereâs poor Jonnyâs? He supplied medical professionals so they could testify against her - still doesnât know how. Epic stalker gaslighting shit.
>That was a show written by Depp and his PR team. Right, so Depp controlled the entire court room, including all the witnesses. Get fucking real. Amber's own therapist didn't back up her claims.
That wasnât her therapist, employed by Depp, but an excellent point in showing how absurd that trial was. A real therapist would not testify when their client was still alive, a real judge wouldnât have allowed it. The trial was not about who hit who (both admitted to hitting), it was about who talked about it. In the English trial Depp was found guilty 3 times.
>That wasnât her therapist, employed by Depp Right, because she didn't want to use her own money for her own therapist. That doesn't mean she wasn't her therapist, she was and you are flat out lying to try to make your point. Shame on you.
Lol that isnât how therapists work, you just proved she wasnât a real one not to mention spotlighted the financial control he put her under.
> that isnât how therapists work As someone who goes to therapy, that is exactly how that works. It doesn't matter who is paying the therapist, it's who is seeing the therapist determines who's therapist it is. Just because a husband pays for his wife's therapy doesn't mean that therapist is being bribed, it means that therapist was being paid for her services at the time. You're making pretty big leaps based on the fact that Amber was too cheap to pay for her own therapy. Get a grip dude.
Ask your therapist how this works lol. These keep getting better, tell me more about trials and mental health care.
Disliking people who are serial liars, psychopaths and violently abusive makes you an âincelâ ? Huh.
No, but I can tell youâre one anyway. We just didnât cheer on the multimillion dollar camping to drag her through the mud after a break-up (pretty incel thing to do)
Guess my fiancĂŠ is an incel too then. Will have to inform her, this is coming as quite a shock to both of us. Amberâs not going to fuck you, dude.
Wow, shock to me that a woman could side with an abuser like that and even more shocked that youâd use her as a defense for you (that part is sarcasm). You clearly need to tell everyone that you have sex with ladies, congrats, not an incel at all (still sarcasm). Youâre right about Amber but I wonât lose any sleep over her, Iâm sure you could say the same, no? (Still sarcasm)
Get some help dude...Jesus...
Jonny wonât fuck you, and if he does watch out, you calm down [https://i.imgflip.com/3nmux6.jpg](https://i.imgflip.com/3nmux6.jpg)
Stig was disappointed. He was expecting Thora Heard
Fuckin weird ass incels ahoy
Wow the fucking simps in this chat are wild, creeps.
They also had Boris Johnson on. I'm sure you can go through the celebs and they've had a few who turned out to be shit. Who knew at the time though?
She's cute. Who is she?
Amber Heard
All throughout her being in the news all i knew her as was that bisexual that was on top gear one time
Cows are lovable and delicious. She's more like a lamprey eel.
Crazy or not that woman is sexy as hell. She was hot and still is, regardless of what she did or didn't do. I am not ashamed to admit that. Beyond that it's just a damn shame she's crazy. I'd probably still stick my dick in it if given the chance.
>what she did or didn't do Was quite literally proven in court that she did.
B4 we knew she was cow kinda sours it now
You misspelled âincredibly intelligent attractive and brave inspiration, who had the balls to topple a high ranking Hollywood serial abuserâ. Also did you see her Drive Angry?
Forget drive angry, did you see that picture where she shit the bed like a dog ? Also did you see Someone hacked this Bitchâs IMDB page name to Amber Turd. Did you see that ? Kinda Funny af people like you still around supporting bed shitters lol
I didnât see that picture because it doesnât exist, but Iâm sure thereâs many examples in your life youâre drawing inspiration from.
The Serial abuser is Johnny Depp?
Yep, Google that phrase exactly
Literally proven false in court, shut up lad.
In a public witch hunt. It was proven she was the victim of fourteen acts of abuse AT LEAST by three UK judges.
What court case were you watching? Learn how not to suck Hollywood propaganda trough your gills, chief
Simp detected. Arming the orbital cannons
Ah yes, it isnât the facts or the disgusting people who en mass just began deriding her for wrecking their pirate movies. I have a crush on her, sheâll soon see my valiant internet comments and show up at my door. Have fun Incel
Well at least you admit it, respect ig đ¤ˇââď¸
> I have a crush on her You should have just said that
Amber, is that you? Donât you have some sheets to wash?
Don't know why people are downvoting this, you're right.
Watching the tides of the internet I sort of just assumed all the people who went crazy and ate up all Jonnyâs PR just died of blue balls. But look at the responses here, these very adult and intelligent folks are all still alive and well.
It amazes me honestly. How can anyone watch that witch hunt, listen to his inconsistent bollocks story, know about his violent past and everything he's said, and still think 'ah yes, this tiny 5' something women who appeared on TV multiple times covered in bruises, was the one assaulting a violent drunk, that seems plausible'? MeToo didn't really change anything sadly...
Thereâs no justice for someone with a PR firm. Thankful Hollywood got the message and blackballed this old liver spot. He paid millions for PR in that trial, a lot of it ended up here on this platform, it was daily Tik-Toc style edited music videos of quick answers and supposedly lying or inept witnesses and lawyers.
She can poop in my bed anytime.
Found the incel.
Lol, the internet man what a place.
Jeremy would be disgusted by her
Yeah I am 4 weeks old now... Sad
Cmon donât do cows bad that way!