Zeldin Attacker Was Not a ''Rabid LIBERAL''

a reply to: IAMTAT

Guilty until proven innocent. You have sat as judge and jury and with no proof at all found him guilty of being a ''rabid LIBERAL''. You are wrong in your assumption that I based my claim that he is not on a number of charges that you listed. You are wrong. My only claim is that the original post about this event made the claim that he was,, a ''rabid LIBERAL'', in league with an over-arching democrat plan to intimidate conservatives. That claim was made with no proof at all. NONE

My claim was that he, of that charge made here on ATS, remains unproven and at this point, two days later. I then finished that OP with this sentence.

So, not a ''rabid Liberal'' as reported earlier though that of course may be subject to change as further information that comes our way in the next period of time.

So, no proof he was a ''rabid LIBERAL'' as charged in that thread so without proof, he is innocent of that charge. However, depending on more information that may come our way, that verdict is open to modification. I said proof, not speculation like so many are willing to settle for.

Lol! The peanut gallery went from "It's another evil crazed leftist trying to destroy our system!" to "Oh, he was just drunk!" lmao

Sounds like another "FBI list" guy was able to get to his target again IMO

im sorry but these coincidences of nutjobs who keep being able to strike off and execute their twisted intentions which just so happens to directly benefit a certain oppositions agenda, keep happening with an of the scales one sided biased

strange

Time to buy "My Kitty Self Defense Keychain" stock ASAP!
The OP just gave that company extensive and world-wide advertising exposure. Kudos! For being especially smooth and passing it under the ATS 'radar', I give the post 5 stars and an XYZ formation. I'm surprised ATS didn't realize this. Not.
😭

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: IAMTAT

Guilty until proven innocent. You have sat as judge and jury and with no proof at all found him guilty of being a ''rabid LIBERAL''. You are wrong in your assumption that I based my claim that he is not on a number of charges that you listed. You are wrong. My only claim is that the original post about this event made the claim that he was,, a ''rabid LIBERAL'', in league with an over-arching democrat plan to intimidate conservatives. That claim was made with no proof at all. NONE

My claim was that he, of that charge made here on ATS, remains unproven and at this point, two days later. I then finished that OP with this sentence.

So, not a ''rabid Liberal'' as reported earlier though that of course may be subject to change as further information that comes our way in the next period of time.

So, no proof he was a ''rabid LIBERAL'' as charged in that thread so without proof, he is innocent of that charge. However, depending on more information that may come our way, that verdict is open to modification. I said proof, not speculation like so many are willing to settle for.

Please show proper and irrefutable proof that the man attacking Zeldin was NOT a democrat or with left-leaning tendencies. Until then, your ENTIRE post is questionable and not based on fact, rather obfuscation for not addressing that point and furthering speculation and disinformation. You are either the cure or the problem and this post is nothing but problematic.

Why does this matter to you?

A quote about him grabbing a microphone or not doesn’t have anything to do with him being a rabid liberal or otherwise. You have offered zero evidence to support your claim! It does show you don’t believe it was an attempted murder, which is a different conversation.

But, you fixating on all the wrong issues is par for the course.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I"m placing this news article in the Dissecting Disinformation Forum in an attempt to shed light on dis-information being spread on ATS

Two days ago on July 21st a thread was posted claiming that Gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin of New York was attacked by a ''rabid leftist'' .
The claim made in the Opening Post presented the ''attack'' as part of an over-arching Liberal plan to intimidate Republicans and urged conservatives to carry weapons to all political events.
Here is that thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Few responders in that thread suggested waiting until more information was available to the public as to the nature of the assailant and the motives behind his adventure on that stage. Well now, two days later, more information is coming out on the man,

His name is David Jacubonis.

From the article in the Daily Mail we can read that

The New York man who attempted to stab US Rep. Lee Zeldin said he didn't know who the politician was and only approached him to try to take his microphone after he was told the gubernatorial candidate was 'disrespecting veterans.'

Information gathered from a neighbor indicates that Jacubonis was detached from reality after his wife died and he was discharged from the military.
Further indications of is struggle with alcohol and dissociative behavior can be found in the article in the Daily Mail as provided

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So, not a ''rabid Liberal'' as reported earlier though that of course may be subject to change as further information that comes our way in the next period of time.

Moving goal posts. Your claim is very clear in the title of the OP. Don’t move goal posts as you walk it back now. Shameless!!!!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: IAMTAT

My claim was that he, of that charge made here on ATS, remains unproven and at this point, two days later. I then finished that OP with this sentence.

.[/qu

So, no proof he was a ''rabid LIBERAL'' as charged in that thread so without proof, he is innocent of that charge. However, depending on more information that may come our way, that verdict is open to modification. I said proof, not speculation like so many are willing to settle for.

Maybe he's a vet but that says nothing about his politics.
He still went after a Republican with a knife.
Anyone who does that regardless of politics is having severe mental issues.
It seems opening all the psychiatric hospitals in hopes of "mainstreaming" people was a big mistake.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
''rabid Liberal''

You used this label 100 times now and I don't think anyone but you know what it means, so can you define it for us?

Did he vote Democrat or Republican, is he crazy or not? lol

Outside the headlines, no one else used that label, but you in the other post you are referring too, and you even said the same thing there as here, so why did you feel you needed to make a new post about a label only you have used in replying?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

At the end of the day, ATS is a social media platform exhibiting moderate to radical behaviors as much as any other internet device. That includes (not limited to, but includes) yellow journalism, hyperbolic headlines and outrage porn for the easily inflamed loyalists. It applies to all the corners of politics and media culture.

Right on & I agree … It’s time that the Q nuts on this site go form their own lunatic site.
UFOs & Strange Mystery is what made this site great , but just as all things on all sides … the radicals ruin everything. I stand & argue reason . Been on ATS from nearly day one after an article in NEXUS magazine mentioned ATS in regards to a new tech subject about fusion . Long gone are those days & now any story is spun just like this guy with a knife .
Trump & Biden for jail 2024

a reply to: Skepticape

One last time then I am done. My claim was that there was no proof that he was or is a ''rabid LIBERAL'' playing a part in an over-arching scheme by liberals to intimidate conservatives as was put forth in a previous thread. I provided news clips pointing to it not being a politically motivated encounter. I did not try to prove that it was not a political encounter as noted in the final sentence of the OP.

Now, several days later, from what I can find, there is still no indication that the attack was politically motivated while the general direction of law enforcement is that it was a drunken man attacking another man not knowing who he was.

And that's all i got for ya.

a reply to: Xtrozero

To dissect disinformation. That was explained in the OP. A previous thread produced disinformation. I made my case and used the term spelled out in CAPITAL LETTERS in the headline of the previous thread.

Here is that thread and it's headline

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, your claim is that he is NOT a rabid liberal. It’s the title of your thread dude.

Moving. Goal. Posts.

Typical of you.

Lie to yourself, lie to us, it’s all good it’s what we expect from you and your ilk you support.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Skepticape

One last time then I am done. My claim was that there was no proof that he was or is a ''rabid LIBERAL'' playing a part in an over-arching scheme by liberals to intimidate conservatives as was put forth in a previous thread. I provided news clips pointing to it not being a politically motivated encounter. I did not try to prove that it was not a political encounter as noted in the final sentence of the OP.

Now, several days later, from what I can find, there is still no indication that the attack was politically motivated while the general direction of law enforcement is that it was a drunken man attacking another man not knowing who he was.

And that's all i got for ya.

a reply to: Skepticape

See buddy, you claim '' you and your ilk''. Good one, very original, yet it displays the mindset by which you judge what I am saying. You clump people together into ''ilks'' and that predetermines your mental evaluation.

Yes, my headline did say not a rabid liberal. That was in response to the original headline that clearly stated that he WAS a rabid liberal. (with no proof at all) My comment I explained that in the OP and left it open as more information came forth. The information that has come forth since that time demonstrates that he was not a rabid liberal acting in concert with a over-arching Democrat play to intimidate conservatives as clearly put forth in the original thread.

Oh, and I notice it is ''we'' that has expectations. That speaks clearly that you assume to speak for some ilk of your own. So have at it with your per-packaged hive mind assumptions.

So you’re engaging in some tit for tat hive mind knee jerk response- gotcha! (It’s still moving goal posts to all of us outside your little head)

Thanks for the psychoanalysis but I would hope as the Author of this Op you could discuss something besides your assumptions about me. I am fascinating, but let’s stick with the subject at hand?

With no proof at all you claim he’s NoT a rabid liberal-while also claiming it remains unproven. I agree with your earlier comment, you are done.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Skepticape

See buddy, you claim '' you and your ilk''. Good one, very original, yet it displays the mindset by which you judge what I am saying. You clump people together into ''ilks'' and that predetermines your mental evaluation.

Yes, my headline did say not a rabid liberal. That was in response to the original headline that clearly stated that he WAS a rabid liberal. (with no proof at all) My comment I explained that in the OP and left it open as more information came forth. The information that has come forth since that time demonstrates that he was not a rabid liberal acting in concert with a over-arching Democrat play to intimidate conservatives as clearly put forth in the original thread.

Oh, and I notice it is ''we'' that has expectations. That speaks clearly that you assume to speak for some ilk of your own. So have at it with your per-packaged hive mind assumptions.

It’s something he is not, while unproven

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
''rabid Liberal''

You used this label 100 times now and I don't think anyone but you know what it means, so can you define it for us?

Did he vote Democrat or Republican, is he crazy or not? lol

Outside the headlines, no one else used that label, but you in the other post you are referring too, and you even said the same thing there as here, so why did you feel you needed to make a new post about a label only you have used in replying?

originally posted by: Skepticape
It’s something he is not, while unproven

What not?

Well, we have to wait for the OP to share that!

a reply to: Xtrozero