You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US politics
December 1 2021 6.36pm

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 171 of 177 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

 

View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 21 Nov 21 10.22pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

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 youíve 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 donít fit the agenda of other news outlets.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 22 Nov 21 6.51am Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

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.
The USA has taken another step nearer the legal abyss with this verdict.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Nov 2021 6.52am)

 


,.,.,..,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.19am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.31am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Yes., I appreciate that but there have been occasions when youíve 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 donít 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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 7.40am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.
The USA has taken another step nearer the legal abyss with this verdict.

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 22 Nov 21 9.02am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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.

I did watch a reasonable amount of the trial, and while I would agree that he shouldn't have been there I also make the point that law enforcement were not doing their jobs protecting businesses from rioters and looters and the Democrats were not locking up the few that were actually arrested. That was why protection teams were there outside businesses.

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.

Antifa/BLM are their foot soldiers.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 22 Nov 21 9.14am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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.
The USA has taken another step nearer the legal abyss with this verdict.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 22 Nov 21 9.24am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

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.
Now we see an attack on a Christmas parade which is likely to be connected to all this.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View davenotamonkey's Profile davenotamonkey Flag 22 Nov 21 11.24am Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

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.
Now we see an attack on a Christmas parade which is likely to be connected to all this.

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?


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.53am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.

I did watch a reasonable amount of the trial, and while I would agree that he shouldn't have been there I also make the point that law enforcement were not doing their jobs protecting businesses from rioters and looters and the Democrats were not locking up the few that were actually arrested. That was why protection teams were there outside businesses.

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.

Antifa/BLM are their foot soldiers.

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 22 Nov 21 11.56am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.57am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.
Now we see an attack on a Christmas parade which is likely to be connected to all this.

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 "

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 171 of 177 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US politics