US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  27 May 22 11.54am |
   |
|---|---|
|
This from the guy who told you to watch his links and ignore the political background of the source.
'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 |
  |
| W12 27 May 22 1.17pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Before watching any documentary, especially when on a political theme, I think it's wise to know about the background, world-view and history of who has made it. This can put it is perspective and answer the "why was it made" question, which is every bit as important as what it purports to say. When the maker is a known conspiracy theorist, who has promoted wild and completely debunked ideas in the past, it rather undermines any confidence in anything new he might say. That's called playing the man and not the ball and you are deluded enough to think that Wikipedia is unbiased.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 27 May 22 1.19pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Says Putin's arse-licker in chief and champion of the 'right' of nutcases in the US to own machine guns. Not got an argument or opinion then.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 22 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
This from the guy who told you to watch his links and ignore the political background of the source. Point me to where I have ever said exactly that? I have always argued that context is an essential part of judging validity. If a source is tainted by lies that have been demonstrated factually as lies, then it is sensible to approach anything new from the same source with a large degree of scepticism, rather than a large degree of gullibility. When even the platform used has a bad odour, that is doubly so. Now I know all of that will be dismissed by those with far right sympathies, both here and elsewhere, but for the more moderate and objectively-minded among us, it may be a healthy warning.
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 27 May 22 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Point me to where I have ever said exactly that? 'Exactly that', what word for word? Typical response from someone like you. You know what you wrote and I'm not going to waste my time searching endless posts looking for what I knew I read. No amount of wiggling can save you from that hypocrisy.
'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 27 May 22 2.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
According to reports the Texas school gunman was outside the school for around 12 minutes before entering. Police were outside the school and he wasn't shot dead until 90 minutes after he arrived. Something is seriously wrong with how they handle these situations.
'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 27 May 22 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'Exactly that', what word for word? Typical response from someone like you. You know what you wrote and I'm not going to waste my time searching endless posts looking for what I knew I read. No amount of wiggling can save you from that hypocrisy. No, the general sentiment will do. Whenever I send a link, it is from a source that is generally regarded as reputable. One that has serious journalists who undertake proper research and who have editorial and legal oversight. What comes back from people like you is precisely the opposite. It originates from sources with opinions as their sources, no oversight, no checking for validity. So when I say "read the content and forget the source", it is only directed at those who seek to try to suggest that organisations like the BBC are the equivalent of some keyboard warrior with a chip on his shoulder, and want to dismiss their journalism as biased and worthless. When things arrive from those with the kind of resources at their disposal that the BBC has, it demands to be taken seriously, whatever its conclusions might be. So if Mr D'Souza got published by the BBC it might have to be. Via BitChute, not so.
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 |
|
BlueJay  UK 27 May 22 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Looks like the police spent more time restraining parents trying to save their kids, then they did trying to extinguish the threat to them. A situation where any response be deemed inadequate perhaps, but police certainly didn't seem in a hurry to act.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 22 4.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, the general sentiment will do. Whenever I send a link, it is from a source that is generally regarded as reputable. One that has serious journalists who undertake proper research and who have editorial and legal oversight. What comes back from people like you is precisely the opposite. It originates from sources with opinions as their sources, no oversight, no checking for validity. So when I say "read the content and forget the source", it is only directed at those who seek to try to suggest that organisations like the BBC are the equivalent of some keyboard warrior with a chip on his shoulder, and want to dismiss their journalism as biased and worthless. When things arrive from those with the kind of resources at their disposal that the BBC has, it demands to be taken seriously, whatever its conclusions might be. So if Mr D'Souza got published by the BBC it might have to be. Via BitChute, not so. You are entitled to regard opinions from the ADL and the BBC and Cope not Hate as reputable sources: Personally I don't.....I view them as little more than organisations filled with political activists of the neo liberal left and often far left. So I regard anything coming from them in that light. You only regard them as 'reputable' because you agree with their politics. The amount of funding something gets does not equate to its objectivity or honesty. Do you agree with news coming out of official sources in Hungary because its sponsored and has 'reputation status' from the state? No, you don't.....suddenly you find all manner of issues. As for this 'basement' dwellers point. As you are into the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. I could remind you that someone like Academic Agent was a renowned and published academic of decades standing, who graded the highest at his university for 80 years and whose Phd required no corrections. You can disagree with his politics but your smears are just that....smears. I doubt that most of the journalists or 'fact checkers' or anyone else who lies for the system are as knowledgeable as that. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2022 4.47pm)
'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 |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 27 May 22 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
In a country at peace with itself I think that's right. As I've said you wouldn't ideally start out with a society that contains anything like this level of guns.....just as you would start out with a single payer health system. Let's not forget that the US does have gun control. With a country with so many guns if you want to carry out something sick like this you can pick up your weapons pretty easily. Some say that more gun laws would just be punishing the law abiding gun owners while murderers could just buy their guns black market. Still, that doesn't mean that some movement on gun ownership regarding mental health (as long as that didn't become a political game) couldn't be looked at.....Also gun markets apparently come with no background checks. I'm just glad it isn't my problem. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2022 8.10pm) Agreed
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 27 May 22 5.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Looks like the police spent more time restraining parents trying to save their kids, then they did trying to extinguish the threat to them. A situation where any response be deemed inadequate perhaps, but police certainly didn't seem in a hurry to act. Horrendous.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 27 May 22 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
According to reports the Texas school gunman was outside the school for around 12 minutes before entering. Police were outside the school and he wasn't shot dead until 90 minutes after he arrived. Something is seriously wrong with how they handle these situations. Defund the police. Motivation to get shot isn’t exactly a prerequisite of an officer.
|
|
| 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.