independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 22nd Feb 2019 9:20am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The D.C. Controversy
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 02/04/19 8:19pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

So what you are saying is you don't care that people have regularly criticised you for how you childishly structure your replies. You lack of care is no excuse. Just like Super's use of yelling here, but not in other Prince.Org forums, it is a tactic - an obvious and pointless tactic.

blahblah Either don't post overly long, multiple point posts to me (be concise), or get over it because I am sooo over discussing it.

.

In regards to the 8 sec video, I see what is there and this is consistent with how this explained by the people actually there. That the lawyers working for their client were unable to say this was not the boys and these lawyers show some of what is heard as being maga slogan related by their captions is because you spin is not even sustainable by their clearly biased client-serving standards.

What. Do. You. Think. You. See? How. Is. It. Relevent? Stop deflecting and tell us.

.

This is not a court and you are not a defense attorney seeking to sway a jury. Seriously, everything a person says after they post unrelated bad tweets must be considered wrong because of those posts? This is only convincing to someone so easily convinced by a lawyer's publicly released social media manipulation video because it fits with their political allegiance.

Ok. Explain why that 8 second clip is relevent and why the random person that posted it should be believed.

.

You really don't get acting professionally and responsibility when in charge of children's safety. Imagine if it did go south telling the children's parents "Sure he died or was injured, but he did not do anything wrong so I felt Ok with leaving him exposed to people that were doing something wrong".

What are you talking about? Nobody got hurt. Nobody was threatened. Why do you see DANGER when you watch the video? Who was in danger? From whom? When?

Obviously, it is not a matter of did the children do anything wrong, it is about keeping the children safe. I have stated a number of times that the BHI is the most wrong and the school's supervisors and chaperones are the next most responsible. I have not laid any blame below these two including not at the children. You are so obsessed with making this a pro-Trump issue you are missing what I am saying and defending the indefensible.

WTFuck is this bullshit? I didn't see the trumpclown in any of the videos.
Extra points for you if you can find my "pro-trump" comments in this or the other thread. popcorn


You want it to be just because of the hats, but is not:

For you, maybe.

It is about appropriate and effective management of a situation the supervisors and chaperones let get out of hand - The children should not have been yelling at passersby. They should not have been allowed to wear any party political slogans

Nonsense. This is America. Even teenagers have freedom of speech and the right to be political.

when representing a school on a school trip, They should not have been the ones seeking to get the chaperones to do their jobs and help them break the building tension with a school chant. They should not have been allowed to engage with BHI how the lawyer's video shows they were engaging with BHI or how the lawyer's video implies they were engaging with BHI

Ridiculous. This is America. We allow teenagers to have and to argue opinions.

or how they were shown engaging with passersby in the 8 sec video.

Which of the Covington Catholic kids were in the 8 sec video? What did they say? In response to what? What is the context?

One of the most important lessons to learn from this story is to not take a short clip video, with no context, from an unreputable source, at face value. You want us to forget this lesson so soon? But you can't seem to explain why or how the video is relevent to the story as a whole? SMH & LOL!! biggrin


This would never happen in Australia, the supervisors and chaperones would have seen to that.

So what? This is America.

[Edited 2/4/19 20:52pm]

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 02/04/19 8:21pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

IanRG said: Good! If it points out the truth so be it.

.

It points to a truth, not necessarily the truth. It is what it is - a client-serving public release by a retained legal firm to manipulate social media and popular opinion.


Assuming you've watched this video and all the others, please share with us how this edited video is deceptive.

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 02/04/19 9:26pm

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

IanRG said:

So what you are saying is you don't care that people have regularly criticised you for how you childishly structure your replies. You lack of care is no excuse. Just like Super's use of yelling here, but not in other Prince.Org forums, it is a tactic - an obvious and pointless tactic.

blahblah Either don't post overly long, multiple point posts to me (be concise), or get over it because I am sooo over discussing it.

.

In regards to the 8 sec video, I see what is there and this is consistent with how this explained by the people actually there. That the lawyers working for their client were unable to say this was not the boys and these lawyers show some of what is heard as being maga slogan related by their captions is because you spin is not even sustainable by their clearly biased client-serving standards.

What. Do. You. Think. You. See? How. Is. It. Relevent? Stop deflecting and tell us.

.

This is not a court and you are not a defense attorney seeking to sway a jury. Seriously, everything a person says after they post unrelated bad tweets must be considered wrong because of those posts? This is only convincing to someone so easily convinced by a lawyer's publicly released social media manipulation video because it fits with their political allegiance.

Ok. Explain why that 8 second clip is relevent and why the random person that posted it should be believed.

.

You really don't get acting professionally and responsibility when in charge of children's safety. Imagine if it did go south telling the children's parents "Sure he died or was injured, but he did not do anything wrong so I felt Ok with leaving him exposed to people that were doing something wrong".

What are you talking about? Nobody got hurt. Nobody was threatened. Why do you see DANGER when you watch the video? Who was in danger? From whom? When?

Obviously, it is not a matter of did the children do anything wrong, it is about keeping the children safe. I have stated a number of times that the BHI is the most wrong and the school's supervisors and chaperones are the next most responsible. I have not laid any blame below these two including not at the children. You are so obsessed with making this a pro-Trump issue you are missing what I am saying and defending the indefensible.

WTFuck is this bullshit? I didn't see the trumpclown in any of the videos.
Extra points for you if you can find my "pro-trump" comments in this or the other thread. popcorn


You want it to be just because of the hats, but is not:

For you, maybe.

It is about appropriate and effective management of a situation the supervisors and chaperones let get out of hand - The children should not have been yelling at passersby. They should not have been allowed to wear any party political slogans

Nonsense. This is America. Even teenagers have freedom of speech and the right to be political.

when representing a school on a school trip, They should not have been the ones seeking to get the chaperones to do their jobs and help them break the building tension with a school chant. They should not have been allowed to engage with BHI how the lawyer's video shows they were engaging with BHI or how the lawyer's video implies they were engaging with BHI ... (Ridiculous. This is America. We allow teenagers to have and to argue opinions) ... or how they were shown engaging with passersby in the 8 sec video.

Which of the Covington Catholic kids were in the 8 sec video? What did they say? In response to what? What is the context?

One of the most important lessons to learn from this story is to not take a short clip video, with no context, from an unreputable source, at face value. You want us to forget this lesson so soon? But you can't seem to explain why or how the video is relevent to the story as a whole? SMH & LOL!! biggrin


This would never happen in Australia, the supervisors and chaperones would have seen to that.

So what? This is America.

[Edited 2/4/19 20:52pm]

.

You are sooo not over discussing this or you would not be here trying to keep this going - you are soooo overjoyed to seek to jump on what you think is finally an pro-Trump fake news after having to put up with criticisms of all Trump's fake news. I think the video shows people from the school yelling the types of things they are accused of yelling based on what is discernable in the video and what people who were actually there said they were yelling. The 8 second video is relevant because it shows boys from the school doing the types of things they were accused of. That you cannot understand what the word "imagine" means is not my fault. The way you bust up posts to make them hard to respond to in the hopes of triggering people also hides what is said: The mind numbingly stupid comment from you was that protecting children from what could possibly be inflicted on them is not required if the children did not do anything wrong. Protecting childrem from what could happen is not dependent on the child being at fault at all. It is not dependent on what could happen actually happening. That is this all about the hats for you is not my problem. Everyone in Australia also has the right to free speech and political opinions: this does not remove the responsibility of supervisors and chaparones from keeping children safe from the types of things they could have experienced at the park and are experiencing today because these supervisors and chaperones did not do their their jobs properly. Busting up a sentence to fake a point by accusing me of only relying on the 8 second video so you can say don't just rely on short videos is pointless. I am just as dependent on the lawyer's skillfully edited video. That this is america is no excuse to not try harder. You can achieve what is naturally expected of, and provided by people from most other countries if you change and put in some effort.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 02/05/19 1:21am

jaawwnn

avatar

Here's an interview with Nathan Phillips if you're interested

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/04/nathan-phillips-his-story-hate-division-covington


I'm not arguing against this kid here, he's just a kid who has been sent to a school that attends pro-life marches, he has enough to deal with, leave him alone.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 02/05/19 6:30am

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

You are sooo not over discussing this or you would not be here trying to keep this going -

lol Dude, read better. I'm over discussing you not liking the way I respond point by point. I'm still down with discussing the "controversy".

you are soooo overjoyed to seek to jump on what you think is finally an pro-Trump fake news after having to put up with criticisms of all Trump's fake news.

Who gives a flying fuck about the trumpclown? This is about the media and social media and how they manipulate the narrative. Please point out all the times I've talked about the trumpclown in this thread (but leave out the times it was in response to YOU talking about him).

I think the video shows people from the school yelling the types of things they are accused of yelling based on what is discernable in the video and what people who were actually there said they were yelling.

Which is what? What did they yell? Why did they yell? Why do you think they were from the same group of kids? Groups of kids from all over the country were in the area for the march, not just Covington Catholic. Which kids were they and what did they say and what was the context of what they said?

The 8 second video is relevant because it shows boys from the school doing the types of things they were accused of.

It does? Which boys? Doing what?

That you cannot understand what the word "imagine" means is not my fault.

I'm not here to "imagine". I'm here to evaluate the video and audio evidence and discuss the media's failure and social media's shame.

The way you bust up posts to make them hard to respond to in the hopes of triggering people also hides what is said:

You're triggered by the way I respond to posts?!? falloff There's a simple solution for that. Think real hard, maybe you'll figure it out. lol

The mind numbingly stupid comment from you was that protecting children from what could possibly be inflicted on them is not required if the children did not do anything wrong.

Protect them from what? Protect them from whom? What danger do you "imagine" these kids were in?

Protecting childrem from what could happen is not dependent on the child being at fault at all. It is not dependent on what could happen actually happening. That is this all about the hats for you is not my problem. Everyone in Australia also has the right to free speech and political opinions: this does not remove the responsibility of supervisors and chaparones from keeping children safe from the types of things they could have experienced at the park and are experiencing today because these supervisors and chaperones did not do their their jobs properly.

What they are experiencing NOW, could be dangerous. And that is the fault of the media and social media, not the kids and not the chaperones.

Busting up a sentence

Keep whining about it, that'll get me to stop... jerkoff

to fake a point by accusing me of only relying on the 8 second video so you can say don't just rely on short videos is pointless.

I didn't accuse you of "relying" on it. I pointed out that we just learned a lesson about the dangers of taking a clip out of context and here you are wanting us take a short clip out of context. As far as I know, those are different kids from a different school and they were responding to the girls dissing them about their hats. Still waiting for you to explain the relevence.

I am just as dependent on the lawyer's skillfully edited video.

And did you find any deception in the edited video? Comparing it to the unedited ones, how do the edits decieve or manipulate the viewer?

That this is america is no excuse to not try harder. You can achieve what is naturally expected of, and provided by people from most other countries if you change and put in some effort.

WTFuck?!? "This is America" is not an "excuse". It's an explanation. We allow teenagers to be provocative and political in America. Sometimes we even encourage it, as with Covington Catholic and the Right To Life March or all the kids marching for gun control. You were going on about how the kids shouldn't be in the situation and shouldn't be wearing the hats. Maybe not in Australia... Here, we're good with it.

[Edited 2/5/19 6:55am]

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 02/05/19 11:39am

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

IanRG said:

You are sooo not over discussing this or you would not be here trying to keep this going -

lol Dude, read better. I'm over discussing you not liking the way I respond point by point. I'm still down with discussing the "controversy".

you are soooo overjoyed to seek to jump on what you think is finally an pro-Trump fake news after having to put up with criticisms of all Trump's fake news.

Who gives a flying fuck about the trumpclown? This is about the media and social media and how they manipulate the narrative. Please point out all the times I've talked about the trumpclown in this thread (but leave out the times it was in response to YOU talking about him).

I think the video shows people from the school yelling the types of things they are accused of yelling based on what is discernable in the video and what people who were actually there said they were yelling.

Which is what? What did they yell? Why did they yell? Why do you think they were from the same group of kids? Groups of kids from all over the country were in the area for the march, not just Covington Catholic. Which kids were they and what did they say and what was the context of what they said?

The 8 second video is relevant because it shows boys from the school doing the types of things they were accused of.

It does? Which boys? Doing what?

That you cannot understand what the word "imagine" means is not my fault.

I'm not here to "imagine". I'm here to evaluate the video and audio evidence and discuss the media's failure and social media's shame.

The way you bust up posts to make them hard to respond to in the hopes of triggering people also hides what is said:

You're triggered by the way I respond to posts?!? falloff There's a simple solution for that. Think real hard, maybe you'll figure it out. lol

The mind numbingly stupid comment from you was that protecting children from what could possibly be inflicted on them is not required if the children did not do anything wrong.

Protect them from what? Protect them from whom? What danger do you "imagine" these kids were in?

Protecting childrem from what could happen is not dependent on the child being at fault at all. It is not dependent on what could happen actually happening. That is this all about the hats for you is not my problem. Everyone in Australia also has the right to free speech and political opinions: this does not remove the responsibility of supervisors and chaparones from keeping children safe from the types of things they could have experienced at the park and are experiencing today because these supervisors and chaperones did not do their their jobs properly.

What they are experiencing NOW, could be dangerous. And that is the fault of the media and social media, not the kids and not the chaperones.

Busting up a sentence

Keep whining about it, that'll get me to stop... jerkoff

to fake a point by accusing me of only relying on the 8 second video so you can say don't just rely on short videos is pointless.

I didn't accuse you of "relying" on it. I pointed out that we just learned a lesson about the dangers of taking a clip out of context and here you are wanting us take a short clip out of context. As far as I know, those are different kids from a different school and they were responding to the girls dissing them about their hats. Still waiting for you to explain the relevence.

I am just as dependent on the lawyer's skillfully edited video.

And did you find any deception in the edited video? Comparing it to the unedited ones, how do the edits decieve or manipulate the viewer?

That this is america is no excuse to not try harder. You can achieve what is naturally expected of, and provided by people from most other countries if you change and put in some effort.

WTFuck?!? "This is America" is not an "excuse". It's an explanation. We allow teenagers to be provocative and political in America. Sometimes we even encourage it, as with Covington Catholic and the Right To Life March or all the kids marching for gun control. You were going on about how the kids shouldn't be in the situation and shouldn't be wearing the hats. Maybe not in Australia... Here, we're good with it.

[Edited 2/5/19 6:55am]

.

Three of your points are about what you are sooo over discussing. It is not my reading, it your obsession.

.

Most of the rest is simply restating the same points over and over and over and over as a result of the silly way you break up points.

.

This results in you taking things out of context and faking points about things I did not say. For example how you missed "imagine", didn't realise this and deliberately completely missed my point.

.

Then there is your tired, old "Trumpclown" BS that fools no one. You are here, not because you are making a point about social media, that point was made in the locked thread with no one disputing this, but because you, Only, Super and Trump are once again on the same side. Everytime anyone here recognises this, and many have many times, after spending 100% of your time on Trump's side you demand people point out where you have been pro-Trump (the simple answer is in virtually every post, you are on Trump's side of that thread's discussion points). One day you will shock the shit out of everyone and you will actually be on a different side to Only, Super and Trump - but I won't hold my breath.

.

Other than that you have only made three substantive points splattered in a really messy reply:

.

1 You don't want the 8 sec video to be included in the assessment of the situation so you want it to be considered possibly other boys responding to unheard harassments just because of their hats and it is not impossible that they only then responded with pro-Trump slogans. Out of all the videos the lawyers skillfully manipulated and edited to feed to social media to seek to change the narrative to favour their client, other than the initial video, this is the one they singled out, named and directly discussed. They recognise the crucial importance of it and their need to create questions about it. The lawyers, being professionals manipulating the story to suit their client whilst being cognisant that the boys could be from Covington, did not say it was not some of the boys from Covington.

.

2 You flip flop between the boys are in no danger to they are in danger, it is just not their, or their supervisors and chaperpone's fault (as if that somehow makes the danger less dangerous). To do this you have to ignore that the boys were placed in danger by being allowed to wear provactive symbols whilst being left for an hour being harrassed by, and exchanging with the BHI - By your lawyer's video: An hour! No professional teacher worth their salt would see this as anything but seriously unprofessional and exposing the children to potential dangers. A large group of boys fired up by a rally as demonstrated by the 8 sec video AND the lawyer's edits with nothing at all to do but stand around waiting for buses for an hour whilst being harangued by the leader of the BHI group! The lawyer's skillfully editing only shows the boys responding with hand selected good comments. We do hear one of the BHI responding to unheard comments about the building the wall - You need them to be unsaid not just unheard, but you are stretching. The professional lawyers know better than make this claim so she only says she did not hear any boy say this, not that no boy said this -she knows that could be an unsustainable claim. The response is not from the haranguer but is from another of the 5 so it not part the soapbox rant to a capitve audience. It is more reasonably understood as a response to what some of the boys said than a random untriggered statement interrupting their own haranguer. The lawyer's video shows this: most of the time it is one person making his rant but one of the others occasionally pipes in with a response to a comment by the boys. No professional supervisor or chaperone, even in the USA, should ever have their trip so badly managed as to expose these children to the threats at the park for an hour or subsequently. Social media training given to teachers includes being aware that videos of school events can be manipulated to be used against the children and the school. This is nothing new or so unheard of that US teachers are not aware of this threat. It has been understood for a long time.

.

3 You want a list of what manipulations there are in the carefully edited and constructed video prepared by the lawyers specifically to manipulate social media to being in favour of their client. I have already pointed out the timeline issue and the careful calming voice subtley directing the viewer to see what she wants you to see. Plus see above. The video is fit for purpose and that purpose is to create the best possible case for the boys and worst possible case for everyone else.

[Edited 2/5/19 13:44pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 02/05/19 3:22pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

blahblah Same BS, different post. blahblah



I get it.

You don't like the way I post my responses point by point and won't stop whining about it.

You're obsessed with insisting I'm motivated by an allegiance to the trumpclown for some strange reason.

You insist the 8 sec video is relevent yet you've won't explain how you know these are the same boys, what you think these boys are saying or what you think the context is.

You insist this lawyer video is deceptively edited but you don't seem to have a point that refutes it.

You can't get over allowing teenagers to be political or provocative and are mad at the chaperones.

You don't care about the hats but take issue with allowing the kids to wear the hats.

Round and round and round....

bored









[Edited 2/5/19 15:23pm]

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 02/05/19 4:02pm

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

IanRG said:

blahblah Same BS, different post. blahblah



I get it.

You don't like the way I post my responses point by point and won't stop whining about it.

You're obsessed with insisting I'm motivated by an allegiance to the trumpclown for some strange reason.

You insist the 8 sec video is relevent yet you've won't explain how you know these are the same boys, what you think these boys are saying or what you think the context is.

You insist this lawyer video is deceptively edited but you don't seem to have a point that refutes it.

You can't get over allowing teenagers to be political or provocative and are mad at the chaperones.

You don't care about the hats but take issue with allowing the kids to wear the hats.

Round and round and round....

bored

.

No, clearly you don't get it but you keep on posting anyway - just now in a way that posts nothing.

.

These are all strawman arguments or simply wrong.

.

I did not say you have allegiance to Trump.

.

I have explained the importance of the 8 sec video, shown your lawyer video recognsies this importance and demonstrated that I don't even need to rely on it to show my key and consistent point - I can rely entirely on the lawyer video to justify my position.

.

I did not say the lawyer video is deceptive, that was your word for it. I said it is fit for purpose and should be considered in line with its purpose. I note you still have not addressed the timing issue.

.

I have not said children cannot be political and provocative and stated they can and are in Australia and were in the anti-school shootings rallies.

.

I have not said I don't care about the hats, rather that it is you who is obsessed with it being about people being wrongly offended by Trump's hats (See: Always about defending the Trumpclown). I have consistently shown it is the complete mishandling of the situtation by the supervisors and chaperones and the wearing of provactive symbols in an uncontrolled environment exposed to harrassments for an hour is the part of the issue.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 02/05/19 4:05pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Wow! I would've sworn we were both speaking English. Guess not. lol


[Edited 2/5/19 16:07pm]

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 02/05/19 4:06pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Jimmy Dore didn't see the whole video like Wise and Devega did.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 02/05/19 4:12pm

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

Wow! I would've sworn we were both speaking English. Guess not. lol


[Edited 2/5/19 16:07pm]

.

I can only try, but it takes two to have a conversation in any language. If one is only intent on faking points out of context, then there in nothing I can do.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 02/05/19 4:14pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

faking points out of context


What does this even mean?

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 02/05/19 4:27pm

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

IanRG said:

faking points out of context


What does this even mean?

.

It is a phrase in English using a play on words. It is to highlight that your method of responding is deliberatively deceptive in that it "fakes" a point by only responding to part of the point being made. As this phrase is not a whole sentence, it is not a whole point and should not be addressed separately from the point as you have just done yet again. Hence, the phrase put back in context is that you are intent on not addressing the points made, just on addressing part of a point to make it say something else. This renders it impossible to have a proper conversation with you and, therefore, I cannot solve the problem you have in your struggles with English.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 02/05/19 7:00pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

IanRG said:

This renders it impossible to have a proper conversation with you


Back at you, sweetheart. kisses

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 02/06/19 8:31am

djThunderfunk

avatar

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 02/06/19 10:33am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Where were their parents.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 02/06/19 11:18am

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Where were their parents.

.

Good question. Most of them were probably sitting at home blindly trusting that the superisors and chaperones would professionally manage this so their children could participate in this event positively and safely, just like the children in the Anti-school shootings rallies.

[Edited 2/6/19 11:52am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 02/06/19 11:41am

PennyPurple

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Where were their parents.

At home ordering more MAGA hats. lol

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 02/06/19 12:02pm

13cjk13

PennyPurple said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Where were their parents.

At home ordering more MAGA hats. lol

While listening to Fox "news". lol

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 02/06/19 12:21pm

PennyPurple

avatar

13cjk13 said:

PennyPurple said:

At home ordering more MAGA hats. lol

While listening to Fox "news". lol

lol Watching the news and seeing their kids out there chanting. lol

[Edited 2/6/19 12:25pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 02/11/19 6:32am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Nick Sandmann's lawyers has stated that Nathan Phillips will be sued for repeated lies and false accusations.

https://www.lifesitenews....d-of-lawsu

For those whose only comment is to mock the source, pick one:

https://www.google.com/se...e+phillips





[Edited 2/11/19 6:34am]

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 02/11/19 7:31am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Yea, sue a native and a vet. Good move racists.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 02/11/19 7:44am

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Yea, sue a native and a vet. Good move racists.


What does "race" have to do with it? He's on record repeatedly lying about the students and people that believe his lies have threatened the students. Why shouldn't he be held accountable? Because he's a vet? Because of his race?


"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 02/11/19 7:50am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

What lies?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 02/11/19 8:49am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Most of what he said is proven untrue by videos. Do some research and get back to me.

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 02/12/19 5:25am

13cjk13

Trump supporter attacks BBC cameraman at El Paso rally

Source: BBC

A supporter of US President Donald Trump has attacked a BBC cameraman at a campaign rally in El Paso, Texas.

Sporting a Make America Great Again cap, the man shoved and swore at the BBC's Ron Skeans and other news crews before being pulled away.

Mr Skeans said the "very hard shove" came from his blindside. "I didn't know what was going on."
...
Ms Montague said the protester had attacked other news crews but Mr Skeans "got the brunt of it".

GOTTA LOVE THOSE MAGA HATS!!!

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 02/12/19 6:48am

djThunderfunk

avatar

13cjk13 said:

Trump supporter attacks BBC cameraman at El Paso rally

Source: BBC

A supporter of US President Donald Trump has attacked a BBC cameraman at a campaign rally in El Paso, Texas.

Sporting a Make America Great Again cap, the man shoved and swore at the BBC's Ron Skeans and other news crews before being pulled away.

Mr Skeans said the "very hard shove" came from his blindside. "I didn't know what was going on."
...
Ms Montague said the protester had attacked other news crews but Mr Skeans "got the brunt of it".

GOTTA LOVE THOSE MAGA HATS!!!


Off topic. But, at least you proved what some of us are saying. It's all about the hats.

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 02/14/19 5:54pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

An independent investigation has concluded and the students from Covington Catholic have been exonerated and will face no punishment from the school.

https://www.nytimes.com/2...ation.html

"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 02/19/19 3:59pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Nick Sandmann is suing the Washington Post for $250M.

https://www.usnews.com/ne...50-million




"I've made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts." - Harry J. Anslinger
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 02/20/19 3:28am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

Nick Sandmann is suing the Washington Post for $250M.

https://www.usnews.com/ne...50-million




that is about 1000X too much. I would say $250K max. Closer to 25K

What if half the things ever said
Turned out 2 be a lie
How will U know the Truth?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The D.C. Controversy