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.

 

BBC Camera Man Attacked at Trump Rally UPDATED.

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex

Of course I can , a smart politician plays the media they don't go to war with it.
Trumps first day in office came after 12 months of campaigning , he'd already made his enemies.


Obama wasn't smart...he is black as in the first black President, as in being a liberal, as in the media is very liberal bias, as in so on and so on... Hence media love fest by just breathing.

Trump had a lot against him...Conservative Strike 1, beat the first possible female president Strike 2, who was liberal Strike 3, who was suppose to have a 99% chance of winning Strike 4.

Add in as you say he antagonizes right back like a typical New Yorker would, and that doesn't help, but I don't think it matters that much in the end. I don't want to suggest just media...we have all of Hollywood investing all their time, talent money, on hating him too since they told us to vote for Hillary and we didn't and dammit they do not lose...ever...

Remember before he ran for President he was a media/Hollywood darling...




edit on 13-2-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists".


Dude that's so old and lame.


My point was to show that saying something is "characteristic" of an entire group of people is faulty at best.

Yet, in the post right above the one you addressed to me, you are agreeing that it's ok to characterize an entire group of people.

Why is it ok to characterize all democrats, but when I use the same tactic on conservatives it's "lame"?


Did someone say "all democrats"? This seems to be a common theme for people who hate generalizing: they pretend a generalization means the entirety of the group. That's wrong on many fronts.


"It is characteristic of Leftists to.." Direct quote from 3n19m470.

Are they referring to a certain subset of "leftists", or all of them? Sure sounds like all of them to me.

If leftists are different than Democrats, I'll have to have someone explain that to me, as that's a new concept.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

BBC bastards use debt collection companies to attempt to extort monies from some really poor people over here.

They call it a ""Licence"" but its really extortion monies with the threat of menace, and serves no other purpose than to line the pockets of some really spurious types.

Just thought you guys could somewhat sacrificial lamb the silly mofo, as a show of good faith.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists".


Dude that's so old and lame.


My point was to show that saying something is "characteristic" of an entire group of people is faulty at best.

Yet, in the post right above the one you addressed to me, you are agreeing that it's ok to characterize an entire group of people.

Why is it ok to characterize all democrats, but when I use the same tactic on conservatives it's "lame"?


Did someone say "all democrats"? This seems to be a common theme for people who hate generalizing: they pretend a generalization means the entirety of the group. That's wrong on many fronts.


"It is characteristic of Leftists to.." Direct quote from 3n19m470.

Are they referring to a certain subset of "leftists", or all of them? Sure sounds like all of them to me.

If leftists are different than Democrats, I'll have to have someone explain that to me, as that's a new concept.


The 's' at the end of 'leftist' is indicates plural 'leftist', meaning more than one 'leftist'. Plural 'leftist' does not indicate all leftists.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


I was thinking the same thing. Right wing extremist attacks are Tim McVey, Dylan Roof, and the Charlottesville driver. Somehow those are equal to 2/3rds even though we've had the Orlando night club attack by isis people, San Bernadino attacks claimed by isis, shooting Republicans at baseball practice, multiple church shootings, etc.

These people must have taken the same math courses the poll analysts took.


On their site you need to sign up for access to the database, which I have done... looking forward to seeing how they categorised that Orlando nightclub shooting. I bet it wasn't islamic terrorism.

Here's some snippets, which make interesting reading.


Statistical information contained in the Global Terrorism Database is based on reports from a variety of open media sources. Information is not added to the GTD unless and until we have determined the sources are credible. Users should not infer any additional actions or results beyond what is presented in a GTD entry and specifically, users should not infer an individual associated with a particular incident was tried and convicted of terrorism or any other criminal offense. If new documentation about an event becomes available, an entry may be modified, as necessary and appropriate.


I wonder how they determine a credible news site... probably snopes, lol.


Current Data Collection Methodology (2012-present)
In order to maximize the efficiency, accuracy, and completeness of GTD collection, the GTD team at START combines automated and manual data collection strategies. The process begins with a universe of over one million media articles on any topic published daily worldwide in order to identify the relatively small subset of articles that describe terrorist attacks. This is accomplished by applying customized keyword filters to the “fire hose” of media articles available through a subscription to the Metabase Application Programming Interface (API) provided by Lexis Nexis. The English-language content from Metabase is supplemented with articles downloaded from the Open Source Enterprise (www.opensource.gov), which includes English-language translations of sources from over 160 countries in over 80 languages. This filter isolates an initial pool of potentially relevant articles, approximately 400,000 per month. These articles are then processed using more sophisticated natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning techniques to further refine the results, remove duplicate articles, and identify articles that are likely to be relevant. The GTD team manually reviews this second subset of articles to identify the unique events that satisfy the GTD inclusion criteria and are subsequently researched and coded according to the specifications of the GTD Codebook. Each month, GTD researchers at START review approximately 16,000 articles and identify attacks to be added to the GTD.

The availability of valid source documents cannot be taken for granted and in fact varies considerably, often over time and by location. Because the validity of the data is critically important, the GTD team recognizes this variation and assesses the quality of the sources. Information from high-quality sources—those that are independent (free of influence from the government, political perpetrators, or corporations), those that routinely report externally verifiable content, and those that are primary rather than secondary—is prioritized over information from poor sources. In order for an event to be recorded in the GTD it must be documented by at least one such high-quality source. Events that are only documented by distinctly biased or unreliable sources are not included in the GTD, however the GTD does include certain information from potentially biased sources, such as perpetrator claims of responsibility or details about the motive of the attack. Note that particular scarcity of highquality sources in certain geographic areas results in conservative documentation of attacks in those areas in the GTD


So their method boils down to - introduce bias by picking the sources they want, then intorduce more bias by human intervention to filter and categorise.

Total horse manure and being spread thickly even being quoted by Congressmen.
edit on 13/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


I was thinking the same thing. Right wing extremist attacks are Tim McVey, Dylan Roof, and the Charlottesville driver. Somehow those are equal to 2/3rds even though we've had the Orlando night club attack by isis people, San Bernadino attacks claimed by isis, shooting Republicans at baseball practice, multiple church shootings, etc.

These people must have taken the same math courses the poll analysts took.


Those are the only 3 you can think of? Seriously? You're either being purposely forgetful, or you have a very short memory.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Fella - the source is BS - and you quoted it without even looking into it.
Even in the mudpit we should be sceptical of political talking points.

edit on 13/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.


Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.


Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



I'd guess 20% chance a Trump supporter, 80% chance a plant.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists".


Dude that's so old and lame.


My point was to show that saying something is "characteristic" of an entire group of people is faulty at best.

Yet, in the post right above the one you addressed to me, you are agreeing that it's ok to characterize an entire group of people.

Why is it ok to characterize all democrats, but when I use the same tactic on conservatives it's "lame"?


Did someone say "all democrats"? This seems to be a common theme for people who hate generalizing: they pretend a generalization means the entirety of the group. That's wrong on many fronts.


"It is characteristic of Leftists to.." Direct quote from 3n19m470.

Are they referring to a certain subset of "leftists", or all of them? Sure sounds like all of them to me.

If leftists are different than Democrats, I'll have to have someone explain that to me, as that's a new concept.


Characteristic: (Collins English Dictionary, I bolded some portions)
Adjective
"A quality or feature that is characteristic of someone or something is one that is often seen in them and seems typical of them."

Again. Get outta here with that garbage. Bro.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.


Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



If you think a generalization means the entirety of the group, wouldn't you be guilty of a worse sort of generalization?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

its not ok for anybody to shove or push some guy doing his job.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Fella - the source is BS - and you quoted it without even looking into it.
Even in the mudpit we should be sceptical of political talking points.


I fully disagree with you. It sounds to me like they are properly vetting all sources before they list something as terror related.

How would you prefer they vet sources, since you said they "pick the sources they want", which is a gross exaggeration of what they actually do.

I fundamentally disagree that the source is BS.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.


Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



I'd guess 20% chance a Trump supporter, 80% chance a plant.


I'd guess pretty much the exact opposite.

But this is all opinion at this point. Nothing to back up either stance.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists".


Dude that's so old and lame.


My point was to show that saying something is "characteristic" of an entire group of people is faulty at best.

Yet, in the post right above the one you addressed to me, you are agreeing that it's ok to characterize an entire group of people.

Why is it ok to characterize all democrats, but when I use the same tactic on conservatives it's "lame"?


Did someone say "all democrats"? This seems to be a common theme for people who hate generalizing: they pretend a generalization means the entirety of the group. That's wrong on many fronts.


"It is characteristic of Leftists to.." Direct quote from 3n19m470.

Are they referring to a certain subset of "leftists", or all of them? Sure sounds like all of them to me.

If leftists are different than Democrats, I'll have to have someone explain that to me, as that's a new concept.


Characteristic: (Collins English Dictionary, I bolded some portions)
Adjective
"A quality or feature that is characteristic of someone or something is one that is often seen in them and seems typical of them."

Again. Get outta here with that garbage. Bro.


So, you'd say that the majority of Democrats show those characteristics? As in, more than 50% of the left leaning US population show a tendency to do these things? In order for something to happen "often" and to "seem typical", it'd have to be the majority of the time.

What you're saying is an exaggeration, to say the least.
edit on 13-2-2019 by narrator because: eta



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: narrator




Could it be a liberal plant? Sure, of course it could. It could also be a Trump supporter. It's important to realize that it could be both. Some folks here on ATS (from both sides) refuse to do so. 



Dude, seriously, vat are you talking about??? I think pretty much every person here has acknowledged, directly or indirectly, by implication, that this could just be a Trump supporter.

I already went over this with OtherSideOfTheCoin... Go back and reread the posts, beginning with page one. The first person who mentioned the idea, merely asked a QUESTION... The next person said "this MAY be a plant". Another said we ought to wait for all the information to come in first.

Do you understand the meanings of words? Do you understand the difference between speculating and making an absolute statement like a Sith?

There is absolutely Nothing wrong with open speculation. You are pretending to be upset at people who "refuse" to accept that it could be either way...

But what it really looks like to me, personally, is that you are mad at the mere mention of the possibility that this could've been a plant.

Maybe even offended or hurt on a deep level.

Like it's almost as if you thought to yourself "Aha! We finally got a Trump supporter doing something wrong! On camera, At a rally, In a MAGA hat, we got em dead to rights this time!" and you were deeply offended at the prospect of someone taking away that small victory from you which you so desperately needed.

Just the mention of the mere POSSIBILITY that this may not be true was too much for you to handle...

Nobody is refusing to accept reality but you. Many of us have reiterated for clarity that, yes, it could have been a Trump supporter. I mean, DUH... who could be stupid enough to deny that? You are just applying undesirable traits to your perceived political opponents.

You Want to believe so badly that Trump supporters are that stupid... and that disconnect with reality is why you will continue to lose and be disappointed.


I responded to you on page 5, did you not see that?

First post of page 2, direct quote: "Obvious Democrat operative. DNC/MSM trick." So you are wrong, not everyone has. To quote you: "do you understand the meaning of words?"

That's "vat" I'm talking about. There are people on ATS that would rather believe that it was a plant than a Trump supporter.

Explain to me where you start to believe that I'm deeply hurt, or upset, about this situation. I'm not a Democrat, far from it. I'm also not a Republican, far from it. I hold no cards in this game, just calling it like I see it.

Where have I said that it was definitely not a Democrat plant? I specifically said it could be, in fact, you quoted me saying EXACTLY that.

What reality am I refusing to accept? I flat out said it could be a plant.

I truly don't understand your post to me, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else.


I said "pretty much every person".

You said you "find it disheartening that people on here...". People as in plural. Then you pull up one example? Get outta here with that garbage bro.


Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



If you think a generalization means the entirety of the group, wouldn't you be guilty of a worse sort of generalization?


I don't think that. I think the exact opposite. A generalization means SOME members of a group, which is what I've been saying this entire time. It isn't the whole group.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It's 2019.

It's about time BBC get's with the times and changes their name to something a little more appropriate.


And...that was a liberal plant.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.



I would put it at 90%+ Trump supporter, but we have zero context to the incident, and can you even call it an incident?


BBC Camera Man Attacked
Can you with a straight face actually say he was attacked?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but I think this is. . .

Shove-aggedon.

Or the Push-ocalypse.

I'm scared. Someone hold me.


I'm your huckleberry.




top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join