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: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

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.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.


Since you are apparently too lazy to do your own research....

The source is the Global Terrorism Database produced by the University of Maryland. They supposedly track every terrorist event in the world.

Link to database. U of M Global Terrorism Database

The problem is mainly with their methodology in how they assign something as right wing. There is a clear bias when no real political ideology is present. In addition, you are also talking about an extremely small number of events in the US. 36 incidents in 2017.

This opinion writer talks about some of the criticisms and flaws.

No Surge in Right Wing Violence



It's not on me to prove it wrong. I presented a statistic that was produced from a University research center. If someone doesn't believe it to be true, it's on them to show the evidence. That isn't me being lazy, that's just how it works here.



Or you could just watch the events that they're talking about. That, alone, would prove those 2/3rds stats wrong.




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:01 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.



Oh I'm sorry. You really wanted me to address that stuff? Ok.

It seems as though you are hurt because of your over the top reaction to one single persons offhanded remark. EDIT- Could be wrong of course. It just seems that way to me. I can't figure out why you would react this way. END OF EDIT.

I don't have to show where you said "it cant be a Democrat plant." because I never put those words in your mouth. As you say, I quoted you saying pretty much the opposite... Kinda silly. So please explain why I should do that? With quotes from my post if possible?

I could just as easily say "Show me where I said every single Democrat is a crack smoking paedophile! See I never said that, so, I win!" Huh?

I also dont have to give numbers. Numbers are not required for one to be level headed enough to say "Let's wait for the details to come in before we rush to judgement."

I dont have a number, I never claimed to have a number. I just said, essentially, that they are known for this sort of thing so its reasonable and understandable to be skeptical. You are, once again, changing the argument into something else so you can attempt to claim some type of a victory...

...because you're just too an stubborn to admit you jumped the gun just like OtherSideOfTheCoin did... you came in here all high and mighty condemning members (plural) without actually understanding what you're reading... You rushed to judgement, condescendingly and we did nothing to deserve that.

Your beef, based on an improper wording of a half serious (in appearance) post, was with one person and one person only. But you made broad sweeping statements as if there is some kind of epidemic (or at the very least, a growing trend) of ignorance going on here at ATS.
edit on 2/13/2019 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/13/2019 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




Your use of the adjective "silly" nullifies your statement IMO. Since, you obviously think that anyone that supports the president is "silly" and therefore worth your scorn. Why are you putting yourself above others? Is it a deep seeded need to feel superior or just being a dick about it?


Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same or respond in like to every trump supporter here that constantly ridicules democrats??? Or is it only you guys that are allowed to that without "nullifying" your /their statement?

In your opinion yes YOUR OPINION, the majority of threads and statements made on this website are null and void lol...



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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?


Using the definition of attack, yes I can. An aggressive or violent action against a person or place.

What he did was certainly aggressive. Would I say that it is on par with other types of attacks? No, not at all. He got shoved.

However, we shouldn't forget that the guy is also a cameraman, filming the stage, and got "attacked" from behind. I would definitely call that an incident. He was doing his job and someone "attacked" him for it.

Do I think it's being overblown? 100%. This happens all the time at concerts, etc, and never makes the news. But because the guy had a red hat on, suddenly it's front page. I hate how reactionary our society is.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

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.


Then you probably agree with most if not all of the posters here. I'm not aware of anyone who has said or believes plural leftist means all leftists. So there is no sense in attempting to police their speech and bring up examples of bad right-wing behavior.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Who really cares what the sub groups are?

They all vote the same

Your wasting your time acting smart with a fruitless argument.

Both sides are against us, and you are here condescendingly defending a side.

lol



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

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.


There there... Soon we will repeal that dastardly 2nd amendment that guarantees people the right to arms... arms that can be used for pushing and shoving... We will make it so only special people who can prove they really need their arms can have them.


In the year 5555 2025
Your arms hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine's doing that for you



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

I'm your huckleberry.


Actually the line is Huckle Bearer...


A huckle bearer is commonly known as the person who carries a casket.


Go back and watch that line again and it actually makes sense now since Doc was talking to Johnny Ringo... Where Huckleberry can mean "I'm your man" and that doesn't make sense with Doc talking to Ringo...

I'm saying this because of your avatar even though you might have truly meant Huckleberry.


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



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: Krakatoa




Your use of the adjective "silly" nullifies your statement IMO. Since, you obviously think that anyone that supports the president is "silly" and therefore worth your scorn. Why are you putting yourself above others? Is it a deep seeded need to feel superior or just being a dick about it?


Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same or respond in like to every trump supporter here that constantly ridicules democrats??? Or is it only you guys that are allowed to that without "nullifying" your /their statement?

In your opinion yes YOUR OPINION, the majority of threads and statements made on this website are null and void lol...


Yes...

And...........

Blanket statements assigned to a group based upon one person's actions are, IMO, a nullifying factor. I have no skin in this political game as (I have repeatedly stated here on ATS) I am unaffiliated with any party.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

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.


So how do they decide which sources are credible? They don't say.
That alone makes their entire process suspect - never mind the fact they use news articles in the first place. We KNOW they are biased.
They've taken # and made a # cake.
Some people seem to like the taste.

Unless you have some detail about the media sources they deem viable that we can see, you have no basis for fundamentally disgareeing with my assessment other than you want to believe they are honest and impartial.

Regardless of all of that it is completely nonsensical to claim that 2/3rd of terrorist attacks are by right wing extremists based on a curated selection of news articles. It's an unverified talking point and not a very good one.
edit on 13/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

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". Can that be considered "characteristic" of right wing people?

Shootings, mailed pipe bombs, etc. Characteristics of the right wing?


I believe I said something to the effect of "based on my past experiences and accumulated knowledge". I haven't witnessed or experienced this. Have you?

I don't think a rare event like terrorism can be used like you are trying to use it... Hundreds or Thousands of terror attacks by Muslims happen every year, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is characteristic of Muslims.

I'm quite confident Billions of them dont terrorize anyone, other than their own families and communities of course, as directed by Allah. Honor killings and genital mutilation and female persecution and such.


It was said that it's characteristic of Democrats to act that way. I was pointing out that I could use the same tactic on the right wing, by using that stat to show that it could be construed to be characteristic of the right.

You got my entire point. It isn't characteristic of Democrats to do that, because only .0001% of them act like that. Just like only .0001% of Republicans act negatively as well.

It's important to show that both sides do bad things.


C'mon man. We saw hundreds of college kids complaining about being traumatized over Trump's name in chalk on their school's sidewalks. We watched 95% of Hollywood almost rip their hair out in anger over Trump's victory. We watched march after march and saw leftist actor after leftist actress talk about violence towards Trump. A huge portion of the liberals that love the spotlight are the ones raining down the negativity perspective to all.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson

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


Not saying it was, but what was the context of it all.... Lets say you put a camera in my face and I say "get out of my face" and I push you back to where you need to take one step away from me, do you see that as assault?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: iplay1up2

do you believe the reports about how much the media is against Trump? Like 90% negative. Yes there are stupid people of all political ideals, but to dismiss the medias role in this is laughable.


looked it up, 92%.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

And for a real-world, up to the minute example, we can turn to Jussie Smollet. That's just ONE instance of faked hate crimes involving racist Trump supporters. Far more than the hateful, violent attacks AGAINST Trump supporters.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: iplay1up2

do you believe the reports about how much the media is against Trump? Like 90% negative. Yes there are stupid people of all political ideals, but to dismiss the medias role in this is laughable.


looked it up, 92%.


Given that the claim of 2/3rd terrorist attacks being right wing are based on what the media says, and the media categorise Trump as right wing and hate him, I think we need to account for that.

Lets just divide 2/3 - or 67%- by 92/8 ... that would be about 6% of terrorist attacks being right wing related. There, my methodology is about as good as theirs and actually starts to make much more sense.


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



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

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.



Oh I'm sorry. You really wanted me to address that stuff? Ok.

It seems as though you are hurt because of your over the top reaction to one single persons offhanded remark. EDIT- Could be wrong of course. It just seems that way to me. I can't figure out why you would react this way. END OF EDIT.

I don't have to show where you said "it cant be a Democrat plant." because I never put those words in your mouth. As you say, I quoted you saying pretty much the opposite... Kinda silly. So please explain why I should do that? With quotes from my post if possible?

I could just as easily say "Show me where I said every single Democrat is a crack smoking paedophile! See I never said that, so, I win!" Huh?

I also dont have to give numbers. Numbers are not required for one to be level headed enough to say "Let's wait for the details to come in before we rush to judgement."

I dont have a number, I never claimed to have a number. I just said, essentially, that they are known for this sort of thing so its reasonable and understandable to be skeptical. You are, once again, changing the argument into something else so you can attempt to claim some type of a victory...

...because you're just too an stubborn to admit you jumped the gun just like OtherSideOfTheCoin did... you came in here all high and mighty condemning members (plural) without actually understanding what you're reading... You rushed to judgement, condescendingly and we did nothing to deserve that.

Your beef, based on an improper wording of a half serious (in appearance) post, was with one person and one person only. But you made broad sweeping statements as if there is some kind of epidemic (or at the very least, a growing trend) of ignorance going on here at ATS.


"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.

For not putting words in my mouth, you sure are saying a lot of things that are patently false about me.

Also, you're the one who said I seemed upset that it could be a democrat plant, when I specifically said it could very well be. I still don't understand your point with that, what you're saying about me is the exact opposite of what I said.
It almost feels like you're trying to call some random member out in order to push your own thoughts. I truly don't know what else to say in regards to it, this is just weird.

"They are known for this sort of thing." That's your quote about Democrats planting people, etc. Using that logic, I can say that Republicans are known for shooting up churches, sending bombs in the mail, shooting up planned parenthoods, etc.
You see how that's a dangerous route to go down? That's been my entire point in this entire discussion.

You don't know what my beef is at all, and in guessing you've missed the mark entirely.

I don't think I'm stubborn, and I don't think I jumped the gun at all. Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn't make me stubborn. I'd flip it and say you're stubborn because you play fast and loose with the dictionary, but require everyone else to be as articulate as literature PhDs.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Wow people will say anything to excuse assault, if the person who did it shares tha same politics.scary.


Hey pal I don't mean to get on your case, but, could you maybe clarify your post?

I don't know that I've seen anyone excusing the assault.

I said it once but I'll repeat it here: No matter what the man's true political leanings are, he has harmed the movement and harmed Trump. There's no excuse for that.


On top of that, it wasn't even assault. I don't know how any of these wankers made it past the 90's. I made some of my best friends after we had a fist fight and beat each others asses.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: narrator

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.


Then you probably agree with most if not all of the posters here. I'm not aware of anyone who has said or believes plural leftist means all leftists. So there is no sense in attempting to police their speech and bring up examples of bad right-wing behavior.


What?

So, saying "leftists" doesn't mean "leftists"?

I'm not trying to police speech, I'm trying to comprehend what's being said, because it seems like there are a lot of hoops being jumped through in order to prove that someone who disagrees with you is wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: iplay1up2

do you believe the reports about how much the media is against Trump? Like 90% negative. Yes there are stupid people of all political ideals, but to dismiss the medias role in this is laughable.


looked it up, 92%.


Given that the claim of 2/3rd terrorist attacks being right wing are based on what the media says, and the media categorise Trump as right wing and hate him, I think we need to account for that.

Lets just divide 2/3 - or 67%- by 92/8 ... that would be about 6% of terrorist attacks being right wing related. There, my methodology is about as good as theirs and actually starts to make much more sense.



Also, foiled terrorist plots and other terror-related crimes are never mentioned, even though these are where most of the arrests occur.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: narrator

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.


So how do they decide which sources are credible? They don't say.
That alone makes their entire process suspect - never mind the fact they use news articles in the first place. We KNOW they are biased.
They've taken # and made a # cake.
Some people seem to like the taste.

Unless you have some detail about the media sources they deem viable that we can see, you have no basis for fundamentally disgareeing with my assessment other than you want to believe they are honest and impartial.

Regardless of all of that it is completely nonsensical to claim that 2/3rd of terrorist attacks are by right wing extremists based on a curated selection of news articles. It's an unverified talking point and not a very good one.


I disagree. Presenting the same points in different ways isn't going to change my mind. I think their methods are infinitely better than a lot of the crap posted here on ATS as credible sources.







 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join