Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Hrolf The Ganger  29 Nov 17 2.17pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Do these videos depict real events?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays Online 29 Nov 17 2.27pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Reading that BBC article is exactly why the BBC needs to be defunded by the general taxpayer. Or I should at least have a far easier option for not paying them than the stitch up that exists currently. I don't want to pay for progressives to push their propaganda. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 2.29pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 29 Nov 17 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Reading that BBC article is exactly why the BBC needs to be defunded by the general taxpayer. Or I should at least have a far easier option for not paying them than the stitch up that exists currently. I don't want to pay for progressives to push their propaganda. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 2.29pm) I agree. The BBC is no longer representative of the majority. ITV and Channel 4 are even worse.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 29 Nov 17 2.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Reading that BBC article is exactly why the BBC needs to be defunded by the general taxpayer. Or I should at least have a far easier option for not paying them than the stitch up that exists currently. I don't want to pay for progressives to push their propaganda. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 2.29pm) Could I ask what parts of the article you felt were pushing a progressive agenda? Not a dig, just generally curious.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 29 Nov 17 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Could I ask what parts of the article you felt were pushing a progressive agenda? Not a dig, just generally curious. The criticism of criticism of Islam. One of the identifying labels of progressivism is that minorities must be protected from criticism.....because according to them...'hate'. The labelling of real videos as 'inflammatory videos'. Real events are apparently 'inflammatory' and shouldn't be revealed...that's the message.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 29 Nov 17 3.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Do these videos depict real events?
I think the overarching point is that the leader of the free world - with the largest and most sophisticated intelligence apparatus the world has ever seen at his beck and call - is retweeting unverified anti-Muslim clips from an account owned by a person convicted of religious harassment. #MAGA
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 29 Nov 17 3.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The criticism of criticism of Islam. One of the identifying labels of progressivism is that minorities must be protected from criticism.....because according to them...'hate'. The labelling of real videos as 'inflammatory videos'. Real events are apparently 'inflammatory' and shouldn't be revealed...that's the message. I don't think that's particularly applicable with this article, although I would agree it's something which is prevelant in other media recently. They're criticising Trump for retweeting unverified videos from the Twitter feed of an organisation with a bad history of half-truths and mis-information - surely you can agree that, even being generous to Trump, that's pretty moronic. Whether the content of the videos was anti-Islam or anti-Britain, it's unbelievably naive for a man in his position to be sharing things like that without any sort of context or analysis. I think criticism is inevitable if someone in his position behaves as such; consider your reaction If Jeremy Corbyn retweeted numerous inflammatory posts from a far-left organisation. I think inflammatory is a pretty fair description of the videos, given they are all captioned with 'Muslim man does this..' with no context or background given to the incident - they are clearly posted in a way to 'inflame' a response.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 29 Nov 17 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
I don't think that's particularly applicable with this article, although I would agree it's something which is prevelant in other media recently. They're criticising Trump for retweeting unverified videos from the Twitter feed of an organisation with a bad history of half-truths and mis-information - surely you can agree that, even being generous to Trump, that's pretty moronic. Whether the content of the videos was anti-Islam or anti-Britain, it's unbelievably naive for a man in his position to be sharing things like that without any sort of context or analysis. I think criticism is inevitable if someone in his position behaves as such; consider your reaction If Jeremy Corbyn retweeted numerous inflammatory posts from a far-left organisation. I think inflammatory is a pretty fair description of the videos, given they are all captioned with 'Muslim man does this..' with no context or background given to the incident - they are clearly posted in a way to 'inflame' a response. They are criticising Trump because they are progressive and they look for any chance to criticise him. The BBC website takes numerous opportunities to push a progressive agenda...on general taxpayer money. Calling these videos 'unverified' is amusing. It's just another apologist 'get out of jail' card. I've watched plenty of videos like those. It's not until you hear the sound of a homosexual or opponent hitting the pavement from a roof that words like 'unverified' become amusing....yeah mate, give you name and address when you post that stuff...thanks. No one is saying these videos are from Britain, but I find it hard to justify censoring the truth about the excesses of religion from the general public. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 3.27pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Nov 17 3.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
They are criticising Trump because they are progressive and they look for any chance to criticise him. The BBC website takes numerous opportunities to push a progressive agenda...on general taxpayer money. Calling these videos 'unverified' is amusing. It's just another apologist 'get out of jail' card. I've watched plenty of videos like those. It's not until you hear the sound of a homosexual or opponent hitting the pavement from a roof that words like 'unverified' become amusing....yeah mate, give you name and address when you post that stuff...thanks. No one is saying these videos are from Britain, but I find it hard to justify censoring the truth about the excesses of religion from the general public. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 3.27pm) Is it wise for the 'leader of the free world ' to retweet stuff from Britain First?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 29 Nov 17 3.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
They are criticising Trump because they are progressive and they look for any chance to criticise him. The BBC website takes numerous opportunities to push a progressive agenda...on general taxpayer money. Calling these videos 'unverified' is amusing. It's just another apologist 'get out of jail' card. I've watched plenty of videos like those. It's not until you hear the sound of a homosexual or opponent hitting the pavement from a roof that words like 'unverified' become amusing....yeah mate, give you name and address when you post that stuff...thanks. No one is saying these videos are from Britain, but I find it hard to justify censoring the truth about the excesses of religion from the general public. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 3.27pm) Again, I do agree that people will jump on any reason to criticise Trump, but in this case, I don't think there's a defence to be made - as I said, consider your reaction if this was Corbyn. It's moronic behaviour by someone in such a position. I don't think it's amusing to call them unverified; I'd say it's correct - you can't even tell if the people in these videos are Muslim - they are just an assortment of random violent encounters which have been assigned a caption to support an agenda - for someone who sites evidence and sources quite meticulously on here to suggest that these videos are indicative of anything is quite surprising.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 29 Nov 17 3.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Again, I do agree that people will jump on any reason to criticise Trump, but in this case, I don't think there's a defence to be made - as I said, consider your reaction if this was Corbyn. It's moronic behaviour by someone in such a position. I don't think it's amusing to call them unverified; I'd say it's correct - you can't even tell if the people in these videos are Muslim - they are just an assortment of random violent encounters which have been assigned a caption to support an agenda - for someone who sites evidence and sources quite meticulously on here to suggest that these videos are indicative of anything is quite surprising.
Well, obviously we don't agree I regard points in your last paragraph as being evidenced and seen in this piece. As for sources....well, there is a point if we had to regard Twitter as a court of law but that's not how I see Twitter nor Trump. Trump is Trump, he isn't required to fit anyone's conceptions of how a president should act. He gets elected or he doesn't. Tell me, do you regard the unverified videos of the last Syrian chemical attacks as having no worth? As something that should be kept from the public? Are those videos of IS throwing supposed homosexuals off of roofs as having no worth because they are unverified.....should they be kept from the public? Surely you understand that the nature of many of these videos means they are unverified. You either believe them or don't.....usually using context and number of them.....but certainty is for the deluded.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 29 Nov 17 4.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Is it wise for the 'leader of the free world ' to retweet stuff from Britain First? Fine by me, there's nothing in those videos that Islamic radicals aren't doing regularly.....or wouldn't want to do if they had the chance.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.