US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Teddy Eagle  21 Nov 21 10.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
With respect, I think you cannot really be serious. I no more have a "list of approved sources" than anyone else does. I judge on a case by case basis, just as most people do. If the evidence is there, then it speaks for itself. When it's only someone's opinion, then that too is obvious. No "source" only publishes actual evidence. Most will also publish opinion. Some only publish opinion. This has nothing to do with me personally. My expectations are no different to those of most people, if they stopped and think about it. It's summarised in that Hitchens quote."That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." It would be much easier to give you a list of sources I distrust as being generally suspect, but I won't. Yes., I appreciate that but there have been occasions when you’ve asked for a link and then said - what do expect from the Daily Mail, etc.? There are times when those are the only reports available because certain news stories don’t fit the agenda of other news outlets.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 22 Nov 21 6.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
The issue is deriving facts from sources, and separating them from inferences or opinion. Quite tricky. Most media sources have an angle on a story, so it is necessary to separate descriptive/embellishing language from actual events. Photographic evidence and testimonies goes some way, but can still be misleading. The Financial Times is about as close as media sources get to disseminating information. Then again, it only covers limited stories, deemed to be of interest to its readership. The problem with the Rittenhouse case is fundamentally caused by archaic gun laws in the USA. Who in their right mind would think it appropriate for a teenager to carry an assault-style weapon on the streets 'as a deterrent'.? A weapon is only a deterrent if there is an intention to use it. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Nov 2021 6.52am)
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Oh look. Suddenly he has no idea. How convenient. I mean he could actually research into it as he has stated on here that the DNC were not in collusion with rioters over that 18 month period.....it's a joke, prosecutors in Democratic cities literally stating that rioters and looters wouldn't be jailed....the facts are there for this suddenly uncurious person to find. However, actions mean more than words....thank god, otherwise he would have to be taken seriously. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.56pm) Your bs is never ending. You seem to only ever see things that you want to see and everything else disappears from view. I doubt anyone here knows the nuts and bolts of what happens to the individuals caught up in the riots, but that has nothing at all to do with a claim that the DNC have a deliberate policy of encouraging rioting and the destruction of property. Things that happen at a local level, even if they are as reported correctly and not spun to support a particular agenda, are not evidence of a national policy. Especially when the DNC has several times made specific statements condemning the rioting. I have several times requested evidence to support the assertion that the DNC is involved, but as all that is presented has nothing to do with them, it is yet another that is dismissed. Just because someone is a local Democrat doesn't mean that everything they say or do is the responsibility of the DNC.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Yes., I appreciate that but there have been occasions when you’ve asked for a link and then said - what do expect from the Daily Mail, etc.? There are times when those are the only reports available because certain news stories don’t fit the agenda of other news outlets. I trust the Mail more than anything just appearing on the web, because it is overseen by an editorial team and lawyers. That's not to say I trust the way it presents and spins, as it consistently looks for angles to support a particularly suspect viewpoint. There are good reasons why, on occasions, the Mail is the only outlet reporting something as it's irrelevant piffle designed to wind people up. It's no longer a serious newspaper. I don't like the Mail's agenda, which appears to me to want to encourage some of the worst instincts in people. That I expect it from them is true.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
The issue is deriving facts from sources, and separating them from inferences or opinion. Quite tricky. Most media sources have an angle on a story, so it is necessary to separate descriptive/embellishing language from actual events. Photographic evidence and testimonies goes some way, but can still be misleading. The Financial Times is about as close as media sources get to disseminating information. Then again, it only covers limited stories, deemed to be of interest to its readership. The problem with the Rittenhouse case is fundamentally caused by archaic gun laws in the USA. Who in their right mind would think it appropriate for a teenager to carry an assault-style weapon on the streets 'as a deterrent'.? A weapon is only a deterrent if there is an intention to use it. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Nov 2021 6.52am) All true. The Rittenhouse case also, if my understanding is correct, has the additional unfortunate complication of being heard in a jurisdiction where the matter is decided only on what is in the accused mind at the moment he pulled the trigger. So nothing he did previous to that was considered. No context at all. Not why he was there, or why he was carrying a weapon. It was therefore almost impossible to dismiss a claim of self defence as being beyond a reasonable doubt, because how can you get inside someone's mind? The Jury had no option other than to find not guilty. I doubt very much whether he would have got the same result in a British court.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Nov 21 9.02am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
All true. The Rittenhouse case also, if my understanding is correct, has the additional unfortunate complication of being heard in a jurisdiction where the matter is decided only on what is in the accused mind at the moment he pulled the trigger. So nothing he did previous to that was considered. No context at all. Not why he was there, or why he was carrying a weapon. It was therefore almost impossible to dismiss a claim of self defence as being beyond a reasonable doubt, because how can you get inside someone's mind? The Jury had no option other than to find not guilty. I doubt very much whether he would have got the same result in a British court. You obviously didn't watch the trial, because it was considered over length. The jurors, if they wish, will comment when they are ready. One led to the other....Similar to the deaths that resulted from the Antifa/BLM 'autonomous zone' takeover in Seattle. All the fault of deliberate Democratic policy, officially stated or not. The Democrats did not say anything against the riots until they considered it had affected their poll numbers against Trump and that was late on not long before the election. Well, the rioting had been going on for well over a year. It's a fact that they were actually asked to 'condemn' the riots many times before and refused to do so. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Nov 2021 9.16am)
'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 22 Nov 21 9.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
The issue is deriving facts from sources, and separating them from inferences or opinion. Quite tricky. Most media sources have an angle on a story, so it is necessary to separate descriptive/embellishing language from actual events. Photographic evidence and testimonies goes some way, but can still be misleading. The Financial Times is about as close as media sources get to disseminating information. Then again, it only covers limited stories, deemed to be of interest to its readership. The problem with the Rittenhouse case is fundamentally caused by archaic gun laws in the USA. Who in their right mind would think it appropriate for a teenager to carry an assault-style weapon on the streets 'as a deterrent'.? A weapon is only a deterrent if there is an intention to use it. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Nov 2021 6.52am) This is what happens when the law isn't being enforced. Rioters were being allowed to cause millions of dollars of damage without punishment. One leads to the other. As for the US's laws on guns, that's for them. It's not going to change and that was even before today's considerable polarization as there are effectively two Americas.
'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 22 Nov 21 9.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
It's clear that the puppet Biden has used race to gain power and used it to slander Rittenhouse. BLM were used to cause rioting and stoke up resentments before the election, not to mention the extremely suspicious voting patterns. It is a shameful chapter in American history, and those that have supported it should hang their heads. And no Wisbech, I'm not interested in your painfully transparent long winded, bulls*** response to defend the indefensible, so don't bother.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 22 Nov 21 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's clear that the puppet Biden has used race to gain power and used it to slander Rittenhouse. BLM were used to cause rioting and stoke up resentments before the election, not to mention the extremely suspicious voting patterns. It is a shameful chapter in American history, and those that have supported it should hang their heads. And no Wisbech, I'm not interested in your painfully transparent long winded, bulls*** response to defend the indefensible, so don't bother. Black nationalist, record as long as my arm, including sex offender register in NV. Also includes many "racist" (though you can only be racist against Black people) diatribes against white (uncapitalised intentionally) people and (unsurprisingly) Jews. Will blue-tick Tw@tter deify this scumbag as they did the human excrement that got the bullets in the Rittenhouse case? [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You obviously didn't watch the trial, because it was considered over length. The jurors, if they wish, will comment when they are ready. One led to the other....Similar to the deaths that resulted from the Antifa/BLM 'autonomous zone' takeover in Seattle. All the fault of deliberate Democratic policy, officially stated or not. The Democrats did not say anything against the riots until they considered it had affected their poll numbers against Trump and that was late on not long before the election. Well, the rioting had been going on for well over a year. It's a fact that they were actually asked to 'condemn' the riots many times before and refused to do so. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Nov 2021 9.16am) Directed by the Judge not to be part of their considerations when reaching a verdict! At least we have another breakthrough in that you are now conceding that the DNC condemned the rioting and that it wasn't their policy to support it. Small steps, but we are getting there.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Nov 21 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
This guy. You have to laugh.
'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 |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's clear that the puppet Biden has used race to gain power and used it to slander Rittenhouse. BLM were used to cause rioting and stoke up resentments before the election, not to mention the extremely suspicious voting patterns. It is a shameful chapter in American history, and those that have supported it should hang their heads. And no Wisbech, I'm not interested in your painfully transparent long winded, bulls*** response to defend the indefensible, so don't bother. No need for anything from me. "The suspect appeared to have been fleeing another scene when he ran into people at the parade, the law enforcement official - who is familiar with the early findings of the investigation "
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| 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.