It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Kushnergate’ is a big fat nothing-burger

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I presume nothing. I am just merely extending the benefit of the doubt to him since I cannot prove his guilt at the moment. This is literally what I've been saying all thread. Why you are so keen on me presuming innocence is beyond me. That has nothing to do with carrying out an investigation. AND I'm not even investigating this in the first place, so my biases are irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the investigation.
edit on 5-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I presume nothing. I am just merely extending the benefit of the doubt to him since I cannot prove his guilt at the moment. This is literally what I've been saying all thread. Why you are so keen on me presuming innocence is beyond me. That has nothing to do with carrying out an investigation. AND I'm not even investigating this in the first place, so my biases are irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the investigation.


You made the point that it was sycophantic to ignore unnamed sources claiming wrong doing. You weren't talking about the investigation when you made that point.
I'll presume innocence until someone is proven guilty, which is a courtesy I will afford to Kusher... ignoring the gossip, thanks.
You may call that basic human right sycophantic if you like - if it helps you sleep at night.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I think you are just trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing at this point. You came into the thread to lecture me on something I never did, refused to acknowledge that the OP is doing EXACTLY what you lectured me about, and now you are trying to word trap me so you can save face from your poor attack on me.

If you want to presume innocence, I could give a #. I'm NOT presuming guilt. As much as you want to believe I am and no matter how you try to restructure the conversation to get me to say so, I'm not doing that. So there is literally no point to this conversation outside of trying to score petty semantics points for your partisan team as you were clearly triggered by the sycophant remark.

As it remains, all I see from you is hypocrisy. It is ok to jump to conclusions for you or the OP, but not me (even when I don't jump to them to begin with).
edit on 5-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I think you are just trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing at this point. You came into the thread to lecture me on something I never did, refused to acknowledge that the OP is doing EXACTLY what you lectured me about, and now you are trying to word trap me so you can save face from your poor attack on me.

If you want to presume innocence, I could give a #. I'm NOT presuming guilt. As much as you want to believe I am and no matter how you try to restructure the conversation to get me to say so, I'm not doing that. So there is literally no point to this conversation outside of trying to score petty semantics points for your partisan team as you were clearly triggered by the sycophant remark.

As it remains, all I see from you is hypocrisy. It is ok to jump to conclusions for you or the OP, but not me (even when I don't jump to them to begin with).


Your claim of sycophancy linked below - nothing to do with any investigation. You just claimed it was sycophantic to write off anonymous sources.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's no word trapping going on - they are your words, clearly seen above...and my argument is simple... it is perfectly legitimate to disregard unnamed sources making accusations and to presume innocence. Affording basic human rights to people is not sycophantic...and doing so does not amount to hypocrisy in the slightest. Presumption of guilt and innocence is not a level playing field in a free society.
edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It is sycophantic to blindly dismiss anonymous words just because you don't agree with them. Accepting that they may be true and that the claims should be investigated isn't admitting they ARE true though. And that is the problem I'm pointing out. People such as the OP and yourself want to dismiss anonymous sources as nothing content when there is no guarantee that anonymous means liar. This is also one of the reasons I brought up Deep Throat. To show that anonymous sources aren't always liars.

Investigations exist to find out if the content being delivered is real or not.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You think posting on ATS is affording people basic human rights?

Give it up. The words clearly seen, clearly say "anonymous doesn't necessarily mean fake".



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

It is sycophantic to blindly dismiss anonymous words just because you don't agree with them. Accepting that they may be true and that the claims should be investigated isn't admitting they ARE true though. And that is the problem I'm pointing out. People such as the OP and yourself want to dismiss anonymous sources as nothing content when there is no guarantee that anonymous means liar. This is also one of the reasons I brought up Deep Throat. To show that anonymous sources aren't always liars.

Investigations exist to find out if the content being delivered is real or not.


Nope, it is correct to dismiss gossip, blindly or otherwise.
The investigation, which you were not referencing at the time, will indeed sort out the nonsense from fact. Until that time I will continue to dismiss gossip from unnamed sources... despite an unnamed source being right half a century ago.

You may of course call people sycophants for not playing along with the gossip to say Kushner is 'probably guilty' as well as the 'rest of the circus' being probably guilty... if that helps you feed your bias.
edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So you jump to the conclusion that it is gossip and then pretend to lecture people about jumping to conclusions?

Seems about right.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth

So you jump to the conclusion that it is gossip and then pretend to lecture people about jumping to conclusions?

Seems about right.


It is perfectly acceptable to assume innocence and ignore gossip claiming wrong doing, but not to assume guilt based on gossip or give it any credence in assessing guilt.

Exactly right.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well that is convenient.

What isn't cool is saying that someone is assuming guilt when they are not.

What happened to all those basic human rights you were sprinkling all over the boards?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth

Well that is convenient.

What isn't cool is saying that someone is assuming guilt when they are not.

What happened to all those basic human rights you were sprinkling all over the boards?


No, not convenient, just basic good practice.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You sure didn't extend that towards Krazy before accusing them and even harangued them to try and force a confession.

Bad juju.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: iWontGiveUP

When you start talking nonsense I stop listening.
Go research that.
Back on topic.


I love how the go to argument is always but Clinton...



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No one has convicted anyone yet.
The court of public opinion doesn't mean doodly squat.
Are you familiar with the Casey Anthony case in the UK?

Doesn't mean people won't speculate. In which case we're all down to our human rights to believe what we choose.

Now it boils down to what we choose but it's not entirely based on faith either.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree. I don't know everything they have.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He is entitled to his opinion on the subject. Innocent until proven guilty is an article of law and applies to legal procedures in a court of law.
The court of public opinion is not subject to any such notion as you should know by now.
I hate to do it but here is where I would insert my own...But Hillary...
as an example...



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sigh - so if someone anonymously on the net tells me that the sky is raining meteors in Perth but I cant hear a sound I should actually be bothered and get out my chair to check the sky, just in case,

SIGH



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I'm NOT presuming guilt


and yet you wrote...


FYI, anonymous doesn't necessarily mean fake, but I'm sure you guys don't care about those particulars


Seems you were rather emphatic in your tone above



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

What part is the "bad part"?

I don't think it is because all that is saying is that a possibility exists:

FYI, anonymous doesn't necessarily mean fake,


Is it this?:

I'm sure you guys don't care about those particulars



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Seems you are putting words in my mouth and there is nothing for us to discuss.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join