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.

 

Alert! Antifa unleashes secret weapon on feds

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FishBait


Yea, the context is the cops have been known liars for decades so what they say is rioting often isn't.

We have it on film in most cases.

Your bias is clear at least. You hate cops because they're cops. Let me know how that works out for you later in life.

TheRedneck


Just like we have film of cops shooting a guy in the head for holding a boom box. And another film of a 16 year old being shot in the head as he stands there doing nothing, not even part of the protests just watching from a distance. I don't hate cops because they are cops. I hate bad people who do bad things. Also, you realize everyone has bias including you? ATS needs a dictionary or thesaurus function as no one here seem to know what words mean. They just repeat what the angry FOX man told them to be mad about today.




posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


When someone conflates different things, from different sources, and at different times, from different contexts, and then accuses others of "lying" about things that they have not actually and specifically said, that is being untruthful, and the accuser is the one lying.

I don't believe it! Did you just admit to lying all these years?

'Bout time...

TheRedneck


Umm, pot calling the kettle black, there bud...



edit on 30/7/2020 by chr0naut because: I very rarely ever call someone a liar. Especially in regard to contested opinions. You, and shooterbrody, on the other hand, seem to use the work quite freely.


(post by PublicOpinion removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:24 AM
link   
When you stand in a riot, you are bound to take a flashbang or gas canister to the head, it called Darwinism.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: panoz77
When you stand in a riot, you are bound to take a flashbang or gas canister to the head, it called Darwinism.


So you admit you don't believe in God! And you call yourself conservative!



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Good. I am never likely to suggest such BS.

Three years is all it took to get it out of your system, eh?

I'll believe that when I see it.


Wouldn't it be far better to defend their charge in closer proximity to it

No. When faced with ranged weapons, the most foolhardy thing one can do is give the enemy the advantage of range.


No, the police don't get paid from public coffers to bully people like some sort of gang of thugs.

But they do get paid to enforce the law. Sometimes that requires force.

Abuse of power by the police is always inexcusable... so is abuse of police. Which lives matter to you today?


Or, maybe those protesters were possibly thinking of rioting?

Oh, I forgot you were clairvoyant. Why didn't you tell us what the cops were thinking earlier since you are inside their heads? Heck, man, we could have had someone else out there in Minneapolis to get the cop off George Floyd's neck if you had warned us!


No, i wasn't saying that. Why would you even try and debate this using such a silly argument?

Because you taught me well?

As usual, you are trying to use past specific issues to make a generalization. Police have been caught in improper, even sometimes abominable, actions in the past; therefore whatever the police are doing today must be improper.

Tell you what: you start actually using logic and reason for a change and watch to see what happens. I'd bet people might actually start thinking of your posts as something worthy of reading, not as a caricature of a comic book to be made fun of.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Good. I am never likely to suggest such BS.

Three years is all it took to get it out of your system, eh?

I'll believe that when I see it.


You are incapable of seeing it. Your beliefs are based upon your own opinions, which are unassailable. That is why, when told something quite clearly. You counter with some false equivalence and have the nerve to tell your 'opponent' that they are proposing something which they clearly didn't. And no doubt, you fully believe that they have suggested it, not you.

Take for instance, my assertion that the police have brutalized the innocent. You have several times stated that this means that I condone the crimes of looters. I don't. That is a false equivalence and irrational argument on your part. When I point that out, you persist in re-phrasing the same falsehood, as if that proves your case.

You persist in telling others what they think. LOL.



Wouldn't it be far better to defend their charge in closer proximity to it

No. When faced with ranged weapons, the most foolhardy thing one can do is give the enemy the advantage of range.


The police are armored against ranged weapons, such as thrown objects, with; shields, helmets, padding and Kevlar. They also can make use of ranged combat, with their superior ranged weapons such as tasers, foam projectiles, tear gas, etc.



No, the police don't get paid from public coffers to bully people like some sort of gang of thugs.

But they do get paid to enforce the law. Sometimes that requires force.


But sometimes, the police themselves break the law. In those instances, what they are enforcing isn't lawful.


Abuse of power by the police is always inexcusable... so is abuse of police. Which lives matter to you today?


In regards to lives lost, it is rarely the police that suffer that fate.

Because I decry the abuse of power by the police, does not mean that I abuse the police who operate lawfully. That argument is another of your false equivalences.



Or, maybe those protesters were possibly thinking of rioting?

Oh, I forgot you were clairvoyant. Why didn't you tell us what the cops were thinking earlier since you are inside their heads? Heck, man, we could have had someone else out there in Minneapolis to get the cop off George Floyd's neck if you had warned us!


My entire previous paragraph was sarcasm and nothing in it even vaguely suggested that I am prescient in any way. I did not think that, I did not suggest that. This is yet another example of your false equivalence arguments.



No, i wasn't saying that. Why would you even try and debate this using such a silly argument?

Because you taught me well?


No one can teach you.




As usual, you are trying to use past specific issues to make a generalization. Police have been caught in improper, even sometimes abominable, actions in the past; therefore whatever the police are doing today must be improper.


Another false equivalence based upon a generalization this time. I am not opposing all police. I am opposing those who break the law and brutalize the innocent and there are some police who are still doing those things, even now. I will not simply shove it under the carpet because they are in the 'good guys' club, as you appear to be doing.


Tell you what: you start actually using logic and reason for a change and watch to see what happens. I'd bet people might actually start thinking of your posts as something worthy of reading, not as a caricature of a comic book to be made fun of.

TheRedneck


Really? Have a look at your weak excuses that you have repeatedly applied in this topic thread alone, and not just to me.

You are the poster boy of opinionated irrationality, illogic and unreasonableness.

edit on 30/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: panoz77
When you stand in a riot, you are bound to take a flashbang or gas canister to the head, it called Darwinism.


So you admit you don't believe in God! And you call yourself conservative!


Karma is a bitch.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Take for instance, my assertion that the police have brutalized the innocent. You have several times stated that this means that I condone the crimes of looters. I don't. That is a false equivalence and irrational argument on your part. When I point that out, you persist in re-phrasing the same falsehood, as if that proves your case.

I have no qualms agreeing that police have abused the innocent. I have a history on there spanning more than a decade of calling out cops who abuse their power. Yes, it happens, and every single time it does, I am right there claiming that the police who abused their power should be subject to the same punishment as anyone else who did the same deeds.

And that has absolutely zero to do with the present riots.

Maybe you do things different in your country, but here we don't use generalizations to charge individuals. People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others in their occupation or others of their skin color or others that might be in the area. We have video of thugs rioting in the exact same area that we are talking about, and not one or two doing it... it is literally a mob out of control. That's on the members of that mob, not the police. The police have a duty to uphold the law, even if that means they have to stop someone from breaking it when you think they should be left alone.

If the police are assaulted, they also have the right, and I would add the duty, to ensure that the assaulters do not keep assaulting anyone, including them. If that means deadly force, so be it.

As to my "snarkiness," you are on record here for years stating the most ignorant, anti-law, ridiculous statements I could think of. I am constantly amazed by the amount of gall you seem to have when posting something that is demonstrably false. I remember one time you claimed that the Presidency was created by the Congress and could be absolved by the Congress at will! So if you want others to take you seriously, try posting serious arguments... as it is, you are nothing more than amusement when someone is bored.


The police are armored against ranged weapons, such as thrown objects, with; shields, helmets, padding and Kevlar. They also can make use of ranged combat, with their superior ranged weapons such as tasers, foam projectiles, tear gas, etc.

Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

Body armor is not a guarantee of safety, nor is it protective against Molotov cocktails being thrown into buildings. A brick to the head will crack a skull even if the crackee is wearing a Kevlar vest. That Molotov cocktail is still going to start a fire even though the officers it was thrown over are holding plexiglass shields. You know this, of course... but as usual you are just being intentionally obtuse.


In regards to lives lost, it is rarely the police that suffer that fate.

Here lately, we have had quite a few police officers shot or injured when they weren't interacting with the public. Three are likely permanently blind because of the rioters intentionally shining lasers in their eyes and causing retinal damage.


Because I decry the abuse of power by the police, does not mean that I abuse the police who operate lawfully. That argument is another of your false equivalences.

No, it does not mean that, but you do it anyway. You're doing it right now. Police officers have been executed, injured, hospitalized, blinded... all for doing their duty. You are ignoring it. That is the same, when it is still ongoing, as condoning it.


My entire previous paragraph was sarcasm and nothing in it even vaguely suggested that I am prescient in any way.

And now the backpeddling. You indicated you knew what the police were thinking.

And no, it was not phrased as sarcasm. If it was, then every post I have ever seen you make on ATS was sarcasm, and that would be as good a reason as any to consider you entertainment in times of boredom.

You want respect in the replies to you? Show some respect for other posters.


Another false equivalence based upon a generalization this time. I am not opposing all police. I am opposing those who break the law and brutalize the innocent and there are some police who are still doing those things, even now.

Then apparently you think being a policeman is equivalent to "breaking the law and brutalizing the innocent."

OK, hot shot, you just got an actual reply that wasn't done just to combat boredom. Now how are you going to react? Will you admit that your previous statements were unfairly generalizing the police as all criminals for simply wearing the uniform?

I'm betting you won't. I'm betting that you'll try to pull some more of those ridiculous replies out of your rear as you are so well-known to do. If so, I will return to treating you as a clown, in line with your responses. Time will tell.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut



I have no qualms agreeing that police have abused the innocent. I have a history on there spanning more than a decade of calling out cops who abuse their power. Yes, it happens, and every single time it does, I am right there claiming that the police who abused their power should be subject to the same punishment as anyone else who did the same deeds.

And that has absolutely zero to do with the present riots.

Maybe you do things different in your country, but here we don't use generalizations to charge individuals. People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others in their occupation or others of their skin color or others that might be in the area. We have video of thugs rioting in the exact same area that we are talking about, and not one or two doing it... it is literally a mob out of control. That's on the members of that mob, not the police. The police have a duty to uphold the law, even if that means they have to stop someone from breaking it when you think they should be left alone.

If the police are assaulted, they also have the right, and I would add the duty, to ensure that the assaulters do not keep assaulting anyone, including them. If that means deadly force, so be it.

As to my "snarkiness," you are on record here for years stating the most ignorant, anti-law, ridiculous statements I could think of. I am constantly amazed by the amount of gall you seem to have when posting something that is demonstrably false. I remember one time you claimed that the Presidency was created by the Congress and could be absolved by the Congress at will!


I don't think I ever said that. I think that was what you wanted me to be saying, and is another of your false equivalence arguments. Please post a link to where you believe I said that. Perhaps re-read what I actually said - and note the context.

To be clear; the Congress existed prior to the Constitution and signed it into law. The Constitution defines the role of the President, and defines the balance of power of the three-branch system of government. The Constitution also gives impeachment power, over the executive branch, to Congress - exclusively (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 5).

With the further assent of the Senate, by trial, the President can be dismissed from office if particular impeachment charges are upheld (Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7 and Article 2, Section 4).


So if you want others to take you seriously, try posting serious arguments... as it is, you are nothing more than amusement when someone is bored.


The police are armored against ranged weapons, such as thrown objects, with; shields, helmets, padding and Kevlar. They also can make use of ranged combat, with their superior ranged weapons such as tasers, foam projectiles, tear gas, etc.

Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

Body armor is not a guarantee of safety, nor is it protective against Molotov cocktails being thrown into buildings.


We have already established that these confrontations between police and protesters are occurring out in the streets.


A brick to the head will crack a skull even if the crackee is wearing a Kevlar vest. That Molotov cocktail is still going to start a fire even though the officers it was thrown over are holding plexiglass shields. You know this, of course... but as usual you are just being intentionally obtuse.


In regards to lives lost, it is rarely the police that suffer that fate.

Here lately, we have had quite a few police officers shot or injured when they weren't interacting with the public. Three are likely permanently blind because of the rioters intentionally shining lasers in their eyes and causing retinal damage.


Because I decry the abuse of power by the police, does not mean that I abuse the police who operate lawfully. That argument is another of your false equivalences.

No, it does not mean that, but you do it anyway.


Nope.


You're doing it right now.


Nope.


Police officers have been executed, injured, hospitalized, blinded... all for doing their duty. You are ignoring it.


Nope.


That is the same, when it is still ongoing, as condoning it.


Nope. I'm not ignoring it. I'm not condoning it. Just - not.

You are again telling someone else what they think. LOL




My entire previous paragraph was sarcasm and nothing in it even vaguely suggested that I am prescient in any way.

And now the backpeddling. You indicated you knew what the police were thinking.


Nope.


And no, it was not phrased as sarcasm.


It was clearly sarcasm. It was a totally ridiculous sequence of wildly illogical and clearly hypothetical statements.

I even told you it was sarcasm! LOL



If it was, then every post I have ever seen you make on ATS was sarcasm, and that would be as good a reason as any to consider you entertainment in times of boredom.


In fact, everything everyone has ever said to you ever is sarcsam. They all look at you and sigh and go "there, there" and sigh again. They are all picking on you, that is why you only trust the voices in your head. < -- That is sarcasm, by the way.

You are taking one thing and blowing it all out of proportion, applying it to situations where it is inapplicable, and you seem to me, to believe that you have somehow made a valid argument.


You want respect in the replies to you? Show some respect for other posters.


I'll show respect where it is due.



Another false equivalence based upon a generalization this time. I am not opposing all police. I am opposing those who break the law and brutalize the innocent and there are some police who are still doing those things, even now.

Then apparently you think being a policeman is equivalent to "breaking the law and brutalizing the innocent."


There you go again. I don't think that, it is something that you just made up.

Even when I explain it to you, once again, you restate exactly the same false equivalence you tried before. It doen't make it any more valid and you (respectfully) just look like a twit.


OK, hot shot, you just got an actual reply that wasn't done just to combat boredom. Now how are you going to react? Will you admit that your previous statements were unfairly generalizing the police as all criminals for simply wearing the uniform?


No, because I never said any of that.


I'm betting you won't. I'm betting that you'll try to pull some more of those ridiculous replies out of your rear as you are so well-known to do. If so, I will return to treating you as a clown, in line with your responses. Time will tell.

TheRedneck


You'd loose.

But you are terribly amusing.



Also, have any of your posts in reply to me, in this thread, been even vaguely on topic to the OP? I'll go back and check.

(I have reviewed them and I'll give you three posts that were fairly close).



edit on 30/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Wow what an ironic ending to what this thread intended. lol



posted on Jul, 31 2020 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, that didn't take long.

I'll reply again when and if I get bored.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join