I'm just being sensitive to your right wing heart. Or, are you saying you WANT to be called a Nazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
I'm just being sensitive to your right wing heart. Or, are you saying you WANT to be called a Nazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pedro? lol what has a Spanish name have to do with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you offended by being called Churchill? Or some other great British name? Seems like a compliment to me.
Oh yea, I guess you'd prefer Adolf.
A grammar Nazi, sure. I am a grammar Nazi. I'm not a fucking gammar police officer. I do have some shame.Quote:
I'm just being sensitive to your right wing heart. Or, are you saying you WANT to be called a Nazi?
Sorry Jean-Pierre, I was simply trying to mock Canada, by pretending to get it confused with Mexico.Quote:
Pedro? lol what has a Spanish name have to do with me?
Winston, please.Quote:
Are you offended by being called Churchill? Or some other great British name? Seems like a compliment to me.
Grammar Adolf, please.Quote:
Oh yea, I guess you'd prefer Adolf.
There's probably something profound here if only I could be bothered to think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How many famous Canadians are there? These are the ones I can think of...
Celine Fucking Dion
Bryan Fucking Adams
Sir Trey Parker
Professor Matt Stone
Alanis Morisette
That skater boy bitch
Paul Peschisolido
Greg Rusedski
Actually I'm doing better than I expected here...
Anvil Latrine, that's the skater bitch.
Wan't Gilles Villneuev Canadian? Or was that his son, Jaques?
And the de Guzman Brothers, Julian and Jonathon.
Yep I'm done.
That poker twat... Dan Negranu...
Obviously...
Oh yeah there was that wanker of a snooker player who cried when Ronnie O'Sullivan played left-handed against him.
He was Canadian.
When Candians play snooker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CDLbr6Uc
Watch it all. Be proud.
Don't forget Justin BieberQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
here's some more:
Shania Twain
Pamela Anderson
Linda Evangelista
Frederick Banting
Marshal McLuhen
Oscar Peterson
Glenn Gould
William Shatner
Mike Myers
Jim Carrey
Michael J. Fox
Drake
Dan Akroyd
Seth Rogen
The Rock
Neil Young
Back at ya. Here's something equally entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLOPygVcaVE
Seriously, who watches snooker when you can watch a real sport?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_wrJpRDaU
This was last week from the World Championships. Most of our best players are still playing in the playoffs in N. America.
And my God what a shitty team you have. It's like playing against kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=99&v=0qiW3HMHmlE
Oh no, we're not very good at playing a girl's sport on ice. Did we cry when Canada played good?
Me. I like snooker, while hockey is shit. I'd rather watch the girls playing in the field, at least the wear nice little skirts.Quote:
Seriously, who watches snooker when you can watch a real sport?
I bet you like watching golf too. And bowling. Tbh I'm surprised you're not still watching that paint drying video I posted.
Nope and nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I watch snooker, cricket, football and occasionally rugby. Sometimes motor sport, and I'll watch the Olympics when it's on.
I turn off American football, basketball and basketball, though I can watch hockey because it's a decent sport, despite my mockery. It's definitely the best North American sport.
I don't hate tennis either, but I'll often get bored. It's better if it's someone cute in a skirt.
I'll go along with your tennis watching rules.
Cricket is even more boring than snooker, which isn't easy to do. I'd rather watch the paint drying myself.
Football and rugby are ok, but hockey is better. Eggball is pretty good too. Basketball meh. Motorsport meh. I'd rather play a video game where I'm racing a car than watch real people race in real cars.
Anything you'd rather play yourself than watch should not be a spectator sport. That includes golf and snooker right there.
Cricket I wouldn't want to watch or play, unless there was a KFC-sized bucket of beer in my hands. And even then I'd question why I was there.
Cricket is fucking great to play, at least from a batsman's pov. Smacking the shit out of a ball is fun. I never enjoyed bowling, and fielding is a bit boring. Watching it can be boring, depends who's playing and at what standard. When it's England vs Australia in the Ashes, it's awesome. That's happening later in the summer. Fucking sweet.
Snooker is a chill sport, I watch it while smoking weed and maybe doing other stuff. It's tactical and skillful, like chess with sticks and balls. It's REALLY hard to play well, much harder than pool.
Golf is definitely a playing sport rather than watching.
Word of the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y04GnSRhoP4
Only the best people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq3BQTub-S0
Is it really a bad day for him? A bad day for the quick witted, dignified Ben Carson? The honorable Ben Carson? The totally not phoning it in for donor money Ben Carson?
8 major school shootings so far in 2019, but it's ok because 8 people unsuccessfully defended themselves against tyranny, which was their INALIENABLE RIGHT!
This guy is lucky to be alive:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-his-n1006851
Full body cam footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYachnFjylA
That cop was in mortal danger of having his nose picked with that garbage grabber thing.
https://youtu.be/tYachnFjylA?t=748 watch officer hero-man move in to neutralize the threat!
I'm sure I'm the first one to make the joke that if you're trash, then I guess you can claim that a clamp and bucket mean mortal danger.
IDK the laws in Boulder, CO, but according to the link, the cop "violated 2 dept. policies," (unstated) and the (a?) city attorney said it "does not represent the professionalism of the Boulder Police Department."
This is a stupid waste of tax dollars and a cop making a stupid decision. If the cop thought there was a problem, he should have opened by cuffing, patting down the guy and detaining him.
"Why are you coming onto my property and asking me questions when I didn't to shit?"
is a valid question for the guy to ask... especially after the first minute of the video when the cop had, IMO, every reason to believe the guy's story.
1) He's answered the cop's questions re. the cop's stated reason for beginning the conversation.
2) He's offered to take the cop inside the building the cop's questioning whether or not the guy lives in. (I mean... no way should the cop do that, but it was, in retrospect an honest offer, not indicative of any trap or ambush.)
3) He's handed the cop his student ID, and presumably the cop knows that's a student dorm... so the story checks out so far. The kid doesn't have a state ID or Driver's License on him. That's more common than not among college students.
Odds the guy was trespassing and is cleverly covering his tracks with a quickly drawn Student ID, and a handily placed bucket and grabby tool? Basically nil. He's a student. That's a dorm. Move on.
At this point... I'd say the cop has everything he needs to drop his initial suspicion. At this point, there's a new thing going on where the cop DOESN'T drop that suspicion, and the guy gets that. Now there's the part where the guy protests that his rights are being violated. (When he stands up, gets his tools and gets back to work)
Someone not wanting to have their rights violated is not suspicious behavior, nor indicative of criminal behavior.
I mean... the guy should have complied and then gotten a lawyer to press charges, but we both know that's a waste of time and money and the city will never lose that lawsuit.
Maybe he took a risk with his life to show what he considers criminal police harassment to the world. It's a pretty "college student" thing to do, after all.
That's his call. I don't fault him for realizing that his rights were being abused and standing back up to continue his day, ignoring it. That's admirable in a way... if it wasn't a cop abusing his rights, I think that's a good move most of the time.
Too bad for the kid he didn't have a gun of his own to fight the tyranny with.
Oh wait, then he'd be dead.
Never mind.
I notice he took the bucket too so the first cop had somewhere to dump his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Your refusal to understand an adult who has an opinion different to yours is ignorant vanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Your voluntary ignorance is no reflection of my beliefs.
I don't refuse to understand your opinion, I refuse to agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
All evidence to the contrary. Your prior post in point. If you think I said that guy "should" have had a gun and drawn it on the cop, then you're actively ignoring what I've said. It's all there. You can go read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
C'mon. That's not your bar for tyranny, and it's not mine, either.
That was tyranny by most definitions.
Just because it's only one cop pointing a gun at him doesn't make it any less serious.Quote:
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control
And yea, i know what you said. The kid had an inalienable human right to have a fiirearm (at least) to protect himself against tyranny.
MMM, 90% of what you've been saying on this topic is that you have been very smart and very well spoken and have made great points, and that everyone who doesn't agree with that is too dim to understand. You haven't actually made a single argument against stricter gun laws that I haven't addressed. But instead of giving me a counter argument you simply dismiss it by claiming I misunderstood, or that you've addressed this in the past. You have never addressed the question whether or not you want less strict gun laws and why. This is possibly the single most important question for me to understand your position.
You say that the price you pay for lax gun laws is worth paying because you need guns to defend yourself against tyranny. You can't name me a single historic example of people fighting a tyrannical government with weapons, you simply move on to say: oh lol u so dumb you can't read, I said defend, not successfully defend! - Ok then. If that is your argument I will make fun of you until the end of times for saying something so unbelievably stupid.
Both of those guys are idiots. At first, when the guy refused to give his address, it seemed like he was an illegal and was trying to evade detection. It's completely understandable that the cop persisted. Should the cop have backed down? That would be weak as fuck. Guy says he's not doing anything wrong and refuses to cooperate, cops simply accepts that? Not at all. Cop rightfully will be asking himself why this guy is so uncooperative. Was there racial profiling going on? Maybe, idk, would the cop have challenged a white guy? I haven't got a clue, and neither has anyone else. Only the cop knows if he's looked at the guy and thought "he's black, let's question him". I doubt that's what the cop thought, but maybe he did, idk.
The cop is an absolute wanker though when he starts threatening to tase him and pulls the gun out, saying the guy's litter picker is a fucking weapon. What a prick.
Cop should simply follow the guy until backup arrives, and then leave the questioning to his colleagues. That would show a desire to diffuse the situation while still doing his job without backing down.
To give the cop some credit he never raised his voice. Most of them on videos I've seen start shouting orders right off the bat. He still had no reason to draw a weapon though. The guy wasn't going to impale him with a garbage picker from twenty feet away ffs.
Also, the guy doesn't have to prove he's not doing anything wrong by picking up garbage in front of a building. Is that illegal? Even if he didn't live there, is cleaning litter off someone else's boulevard trespassing? Cop had no reason to approach him whatsoever imo. Is a cop going to just start demanding explanations from everyone he runs into on the street? Fuck off.
OTOH, the guy knew his rights and was right to be pissed off, but so what? Just cooperate with the prick with the gun and get it over with. That's what I always did. It could have been over in less than two minutes instead of the twelve minutes it took on the video. You don't have to fight with every asshole you meet.
Of course this isn't illegal, but the cop wasn't there because of reports of a guy picking litter. He was investigating trespass. That's not a crime in the UK, but maybe it is a police matter in this state. Whatever, the cop was doing his job asking this guy what he was doing. Now, this guy was uncooperative, and the cop in turn grew suspicious, so the cop persisted and refused to back down. No problem here.Quote:
Also, the guy doesn't have to prove he's not doing anything wrong by picking up garbage in front of a building.
You're basically arguing that a cop doesn't have the right to approach and question an individual. That's crazy.Quote:
Cop had no reason to approach him whatsoever imo.
No, but if he's been called to a location to investigate a report of a crime, and somebody is there,that somebody is going to be questioned. Why is that a problem?Quote:
Is a cop going to just start demanding explanations from everyone he runs into on the street? Fuck off.
Yeah, exactly why I think this guy is a dick, too. I can only guess that this guy is immediately playing the race card... he thinks he was approached because he's black, not because he's present at a location the cops were called to. It's not out of the question that the person who called the cops gave a description to police that said "black", in which case the cop is even more within his rights to question this guy.Quote:
OTOH, the guy knew his rights and was right to be pissed off, but so what? Just cooperate...
Just cooperate. Admittedly, once the cop draws the gun, or even threatens to use the taser, I can totally understand why this guy switched to megadick mode, but up to that point, he was just being a dick needlessly. Respect the fact the cop has a job to do, and cooperate.
Assuming the cop didn't just make that whole trespassing shit up...or that the trespassing in question was six months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Do you think the cop is going to admit it if he's just having a bad day and saw some guy he thought he could push around? Like, "I'm stopping you 'cause I felt like it. Now put the garbage grabber thing down or I'll blow your head off."
It's not crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The cop has to see the guy doing something wrong to detain him afaik. He can't just go up to people and say "hey there was a crime around here some time. Are you a criminal?" when they've given him no reason to suspect they are.
He can ask questions but the guy is not obligated to answer them. He can't then keep asking questions and giving orders like he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're sure giving the cop a lot of benefit of the doubt. Just as likely (not more likely, but just as) he's the type to do his own racial profiling and use it as an excuse to wave his dick around. The fact he's willing to pull his weapons on the guy suggests he doesn't quite have his head on straight in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Was with you up to here, but yeah I agree cooperating is much easier and safer. I'm not going to provoke a jerk with a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
p.s. No cop ever admitted to me he was stopping me just to be a dick. Some of the excuses I got were "Just a random check." (on someone walking down the street?) or "We had a report of a break and enter." (I'm sure you did. So why are you stopping me and no-one else walking down the street?) or "Someone reported their walkman missing. Is that yours? Do you have a receipt?" (yea, cause I carry around a receipt for everything I own just to prove I didn't steal it. Hold on, it's in my wallet next to my receipt for my underwear. Fuck off).
btw, the cop says at the beginning "I saw you sitting on the patio behind the building and I also saw a no trespassing sign. So I just wanted to make sure you belong here."
So he wasn't called there to investigate a crime, and he had no reason to think the guy was trespassing. Fucking Inspector Clouseau.
That's quite an assumption. Sure it's possible, but I'm inclined to give the cop the benefit of the doubt here. If he was making up shit, I'd have expected that to be reported. And why would he ask for backup? He'd then have to hope his colleagues didn't have a problem with him lying in order to question a random guy.Quote:
Assuming the cop didn't just make that whole trespassing shit up...or that the trespassing in question was six months ago.
Something wrong? So a cop can only approach an individual if he catches him red handed breaking the law? A cop can't use his discretion to decide if he considers the guy suspicious? I don't like overpolicing at all, but asking someone what they're doing when they're present at a location that he has been sent to, that's reasonable.Quote:
The cop has to see the guy doing something wrong to detain him afaik.
Some time? I'm assuming the last half an hour at most. In which case, yes he can go up to people and ask what they're doing. That's his job, it's why he was sent there to investigate.Quote:
He can't just go up to people and say "hey there was a crime around here some time. Are you a criminal?
Agreed, but herein lies the problem. If you refuse to cooperate with a cop when he asks what you're doing, chances are it will perk his suspicion, warranting further questioning. And so the situation can deteriorate into a standoff quickly.Quote:
He can ask questions but the guy is not obligated to answer them. He can't then keep asking questions and giving orders like he did.
There's no reason not to.Quote:
You're sure giving the cop a lot of benefit of the doubt.
This is the polar opposite of giving him the benefit of the doubt, and is no better than racial profiling. Why would you default to "cop is an asshole" when he's simply asking normal cop questions? Why is that any better than defaulting to "criminal" when you see a black person? Is it ok to discriminate against white cops? Is that what you're saying?Quote:
Just as likely (not more likely, but just as) he's the type to do his own racial profiling and use it as an excuse to wave his dick around.
I've been pulled before for no apparent reason. It happens. Maybe it happens more to minorities, and that is a problem, but a bigger problem would be police feeling like they can't do their job out of fear of being labelled racist.Quote:
p.s. No cop ever admitted to me he was stopping me just to be a dick.
This does put a different context on to it, but it doesn't confirm that he wasn't called out. He does say "we've had some stuff going on here". Whether that's true or not is open to debate, but if it is, then the cop is well within his rights to question this guy.Quote:
btw, the cop says at the beginning "I saw you sitting on the patio behind the building and I also saw a no trespassing sign. So I just wanted to make sure you belong here."
So he wasn't called there to investigate a crime, and he had no reason to think the guy was trespassing. Fucking Inspector Clouseau.
I'd definitely like to know why the cop is there.
I don't see why you're giving this particular cop the benefit of the doubt when he's obviously shown he's a complete retard.
The cop can truthfully say "we've had some stuff going on here" about any neighborhood. They can say that whether there's been stuff going on or not. How are you going to know if it was something three blocks away that happened 4 years ago?
Now, for this specific incident: If you see someone sitting on a patio where there's a no trespassing sign, that alone is not very suspicious. You should think 99% chance he lives there or is working there. Then, if you for whatever reason decide it is suspicious (maybe there's a trespassing epidemic going on in that town, who knows), and then go up to him and see he's picking up garbage around the place that should tell you he's 99.999% not a trespasser. He's fucking working, duh!
At that point the cop should have put 2+2 together and said 'have a nice day, sir' and fucked off. Instead he decided to go on a power trip and try to boss the guy around a bit.
Once the cop's committed to his 'investigation' though, it's pretty unlikely, even if he realizes how dumb he's being, that he's going to just stop and go 'sorry my mistake.' The chance he will do that is even less than the chance the guy he's harassing is actually a trespasser. So the kid should have realized it was pointless to argue with Seargeant Shithead and just let him have whatever little orgasm he gets from playing Kojak.
Because the evidence he's a complete retard only became apparent to me after I had written out my post.Quote:
I don't see why you're giving this particular cop the benefit of the doubt when he's obviously shown he's a complete retard.
Well I won't know, but his superiors will.Quote:
How are you going to know if it was something three blocks away that happened 4 years ago?
Agreed.Quote:
If you see someone sitting on a patio where there's a no trespassing sign, that alone is not very suspicious.
I agree with this if the cop has no reason to be there.Quote:
At that point the cop should have put 2+2 together and said 'have a nice day, sir' and fucked off. Instead he decided to go on a power trip and try to boss the guy around a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This is perfect for the gun nuts.
A handgun (also sniper/assault etc rifles, machine guns etc) is by definition a weapon. There is nothing else it can be. A handgun is by definition not a tool, unless you consider its function as a tool that of killing people.
A machete is a tool, which can also be used as a weapon. Its main function is to cut down stuff, like tall grass, sugar canes, trimming trees, etc. It can also be used to chop people's heads off and otherwise maim, but a lot of force, determination and courage are required to do that.
What this dude had in hand is not a weapon. What the officer had in hand was. Funny how the officer told this dude to "drop the weapon". So scared of a long stick to pick up trash.
In general, police officers have wide leeway to make on-the-spot decisions about what they are suspicious, but they still need a justifiable reason to be suspicious in order to stop and question a civilian.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They can ask you to stop all day. They can talk to you all day.
They can't order you to stop and be subject of their investigation without reasonable suspicion, though.
It's a fuzzy line, but the police aren't allowed to pick someone and follow them around until they commit a crime. Even when the person is in a public space. At some point, it's police harassment. They need a justifiable reason for being suspicious in order to investigate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If he was "sent there" to investigate by a judge's warrant, then that certainly qualifies as a justified reason.
Being mouthy and/or disrespectful to a cop is ill-advised, but not against the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If a cop asks to search your vehicle or bag or whatever... that's because they need your permission. I.e. they do not have the right to do so. You refusing them that voluntary search is never suspicious in and of itself. If some stranger asks you what's in your pockets, they can fuck off. If the cop isn't acting out of their professional duty, justified by their reasons, then you can tell them to fuck off, too.
Again, it's ill-advised, but the cop cannot say, "He told me to fuck off, and I found that suspicious."
If a cop orders you to let them search your stuff, then that's different. However, as I've noted, they can't order you unless they're already suspicious (or more certain, due to a warrant or whatever). Whether they're asking or ordering makes all the difference in the world.
Yeah I mean I don't disagree with anything there. It's just that I can understand why the cop became suspicious. I did, I figured this guy was trying to hide something. If I were a cop, I'd want to keep questioning him. Whether I should have approached him in the first place, that's a different matter.
Again, without wanting to condone the kid's behaviour:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The cop doesn't get to decide what the kid's rights are. The kid did not have to answer any questions, full stop. The cop had no reason to think the kid was committing a crime or about to commit a crime. So, the law is that the kid doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to. Moreoever, his refusal to answer doesn't change that law. The cop can't decide that if someone is refusing to volunteer information he's not required by law to give, the law has suddenly changed so that he is required to give information.
Sure, the cop might feel more suspicious about the kid if he seems uncooperative, but that doesn't change what the law says the kid's rights are. In this situation, the kid is perfectly within his rights to tell the cop to fuck off.
This needs to be called out more for exactly what it is. It's a cynical preemptive legal argument for the individual cop's lawyers and the police department's lawyers. Similarly "stop resisting!" is used while people being pinned down by multiple officers are beaten/tazed as a form of instant "justice." If video of the incident ever makes it to court, a jury will be predisposed to see the person as the bad actor because the audio is laced with a pro cop biased narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I am not anti-cop. You won't hear me saying "ACAB!", I think there are problems inherent to the profession that they can do a much better job of mitigating, but I'm happy I live in a place with a professionalized police force that is relatively free of corruption. That being said, these live narrations by cops for an intended jury audience are disturbing.
That all being said, while I understand the guy's frustration, he was really walking on the edge when he heard the cop refer to the picker-upper thing as a weapon, and then continued to aggressively point it at the cop. The cop was like a bull giving all the signals that he was readying to charge, and the guy did almost all the wrong things to keep from getting mauled. If a cop tells you to "put down the weapon", you should do everything you can to make clear that you are not a threat. If you want to continue walking away, do so with your hands up and slowly while calmly stating that you are not armed, because what he is doing is justifying shooting you, to himself as well as a future jury.
So Mueller has come out in a public press conference now and said, basically "Read the fucking report. We couldn't indict him because he's a sitting president. We also couldn't clear him (hint, hint, wink, wink). Obstruction of justice is a serious offense. Congress, do your fucking job."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJ6wiIDHg
"There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election"
-Mueller
"There were multiple, systematic attempts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election"
Some spin doctor blow hard who literally just misquoted the guy less than a minute after showing us the actual quote.
FFS, American journalism is dead.
Correction, Western journalism is dead. It's exactly the same here. Remember Novichok? Something like "the sample was pure", meaning "impossible to have come from a door knob having been there for days in rain", spun as "military grade of the type developed by Russia".
I'm glad you see through the bullshit Mojo.
Not sure what movie you guys are watching. The Mueller Report specifically mentions Russian interference. I mean, the reporter may have added that word where Mueller hadn't specifically said it at that moment, but really? You think that is fake news?
If you're outraged by that, you're gonna be apoplectic when you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49DUbjCqO8
WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You are giving me migraine. Do you actually think Mueller meant to say there was interference by... who the fuck do you think - when the "Mueller Report" he's been working on for the past two years lays out multiple instances of russian election interference, names the actors and handed out indictments for said actors, actually meant to say there was election interference - in general... never mind the 200+ pages of case after case of russian election interference. What the fuck is this? What are you doing? Journalism is dead because they contextually interpret Mueller to talk about russian election interference... One of just two things he was tasked with looking into. What you're saying is so insane it's physically making me feel dizzy.
WHAT?!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What the fuck do you think is wrong with inferring Robert Mueller was talking about russian election interference. There's no way any of you two has read even the summary of the report... which I don't mind if you're living on an island, but for an american citizen to not have read even the fucking introduction to the Mueller report is neglecting your duty as a voter... you know what, I don't even care if you're an american and you can't be bothered to read 4 pages, but then to go ahead, shit your pants, fall on your ass and proclaim journalism is dead because you completely missed the boat on what's going on... that's insanity.
Let me fix that:Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8...1kafNIBoITxC-A
I can't be fucked to read it, I don't even care if he obstructed justice or whatever, but any talk of Russia is complete an utter bollocks. Anything I read in the MSM about Russia is immediately dismissed as propaganda, and I'm right at least 95% of the time.
@Oskar: lol. You're still fabricating paper tigers to be afraid of.
No one said the MR wasn't about election interference and specifically Russian involvement.
I pointed out that the reporter misquoted MR seconds after hearing the quote. The reported editorialized the quote, he spun it.
Mueller in that comment took time to specifically talk about the MR's statements about the sitting POTUS. He said what we've all been saying all along. That the report could never, under any circumstances indict or give evidence to support indictment of any sitting POTUS. He could not even keep evidence against the sitting POTUS under seal until the POTUS was no longer sitting, as he explained that violates their rights.
For the reporter to inject the "clarification" that Mueller was specifically talking about Russia, and not that other thing he mentioned moments before is spin. Mueller read a prepared report. If he meant to specifically say "Russia" in his closing statement, he'd have said, "Russia."
He didn't.
And it's still interesting.
What election interference do you think he was talking about?
For example?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Novichok
Don't change the subject. My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Who's talking about election interference? Mueller.
What did Mueller say? (watch the vid)
What did the reporter say Mueller said? (watch the vid)
Are those word-for-word the same?
No.
Ergo, the reporter was editorializing, or spinning the statement.
We're not doing this again. Nobody outside of bumfuck Wiltshire even knows what the fuck this is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What possible election interference other than russian election interference could Mueller have been talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not saying there isn't other election interference, there most certainly is, but which one of those do you think Mueller could have been talking about?
If you're saying that yeah, of course he was talking about russian election interference, duh, I'm not retarded over here... but the reporter is "editorializing, or spinning the statement" to the extent that prompts you to proclaim "western journalism is dead" because he described the content of the statement rather than quoting him verbating... huh? That is how the press dies? By adding a word that doesn't change the meaning?
I would point to the mueller report actually corroborating most wapo and nyt stories that were previously dismissed as left wing hysteria but actually turned out to be correct or mostly correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yeah I'm glad you can't be fucked to argue about Novichok because I can't either. It's obviously a crock of shit. There's nothing more to add.
In case anyone is interested in the Assange case...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...lenting-state/
Yeah they are if you're going to say the reporter spun the story by quoting Mueller to say russian election interference, when Mueller clearly was talking about russian election interference. That is not spinning the story. To know how that qualifies as spinning the story, I need to know what you think it was spun from.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Dude, it's ok dun wurry. If the US tortures him and Chelsea Manning to death, the constitutionalists will come out of the woodwork and bangbang their way out of tyranny!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They're exactly the topic if you're going to accuse someone of putting a spin on Mueller's comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Seriously, that attack on the journalist for inserting the obvious context into Mueller's words is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum, with the possible exception of the following post by Ong congratulating you for seeing the light.
Attachment 1151
.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Then you must not know what "spin" means. It means putting a biased interpretation on a story. There's nothing 'spinny' about mentioning that Mueller was referring to Russian interference. That's what half the report was about. Everybody knows that.
"Spin" would be saying the report exonerates Trump because it doesn't indict him, giving the impression that he wasn't indicted because he was judged innocent, rather than that he wasn't indicted because it was against policy to indict a sitting POTUS.
I don't understand your goal here. This quote is from the context of me criticizing this police officer for participating in a wide spread systemic issue in policing. To bolster my point, I make it clear that I'm not an ACAB drooler. Being anti-cop is nonsensical. No one actually wants to live in a society without police. You might say the words, you might think you mean them-- but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, when you actually understand the implications, it's not what you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Being anti-cop is a childish response to a serious set of issues. It's akin to the people who hear about a rapist going to prison and proclaim their hope that they themselves get raped. It's dumb. Mulling it over for half a second makes it abundantly clear how dumb of a position it is.
Trump is in the UK. Naturally, Twitter is in meltdown, more so than when Saudi Princes come here.
HE SAID "STOPED"
OH MY FUCKING GOD
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE RETARD
HE MADE A TYPO
IMPEACH HIM NOW
Someone ever referred to CNN as "free press".
But the typo...
So far I've been blocked by two anti-Trump morons for my sarcastic but non-offensive replies to their retarded tweets.
What a wonderful world Twitter is. If someone disagrees with you, pretend they don't exist.
I don't recall ever calling Trump a retard because of a typo. I call him a retard in point of fact.
https://cdn.i24news.tv/uploads/36/03....png?width=850
The banana challenge to find any clip of Trump as president saying something smart still stands as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWz...youtu.be&t=129
^^ These are both from last week fwiw. I'm not going out of my way to make the man look bad.
Why does anyone give a shit if Kim is firing missiles into the sea?
If you wanted to get me to nod in approval, you could have quoted him saying that it's fake news that he called Meghan "nasty",when he was recording using that exact word. That is dumb, not a tweet giving zero fucks about Kim's missile adventures.
Lets a maniac develop a nuclear program - no problem.
Insults a Royal - arrrrgghgghggh!!
"Lets a maniac develop a nuclear program"
Implies Don is President of the World.
Obviously I don't care if he insults the Royals, I regularly do so. Just don't pretend you didn't when you were recorded doing so.
I was just teasing you; I don't actually have you down as a Royalist.
Indeed, but obviously it's xenophobia, since they're German.
"I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Bidan a low IQ individual, & worse."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why do I have to point out that that's the retarded part? Does that sound like something someone who's not retarded would say?
Yeah but so are you, Anglo Saxon.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Germanic people originally came from Scandanavia. The country "Germany" is named after the territory Germanic people occupied, the ethnic group are not named after the nation of Germany. If anything, I'm of Swedish heritage, as are the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nice try though.
Why's it retarded? Because he thinks Kim will keep a promise? Why does Trump "have confidence"? If I said to you "we can either be friends or I can punch you in the face", and I'm a world class boxer while you're a skinny nobody, then you probably opt to be friends. I would even go as far as to say I would have "high confidence" that you would choose that option.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Or is the retarded part the bit where Trump takes pleasure in mocking Biden? Or maybe the retarded part is spelling his name wrong.
Please, do elaborate.
I'm not even bothered by the content. It's a completely disjointed sentence. I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. You don't do that. You have never sounded as dumb as the president of the US, and I'm sure you've been every stage of drunk and high while posting.
It's all levels of retarded. Yeah, it's retarded on the face to say you have confidence in someone's promise when the preceding sentence conceded that he broke that very promise. Then period, ampersand, poop pants "and also smiled..." total non sequitur. Second half of the sentence has no relation to the first and introduces an entirely new thought... the thought being that Kim smiled when he called Joe Biden low IQ. Ok. There's your statement from the leader of the free world.
Also, I understand that this is a tough challenge but if you happen to stumble upon a Trump quote that sounds semi coherent, then feel free to post it right up. I know it's tough, but that's my point.
I don't understand why it bothers you. You're not even American.Quote:
I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. You don't do that.
I don't think I am as dumb as Trump. It's a shame intelligence isn't what gets you places, because if it was, I'd be doing better than he is.Quote:
You have never sounded as dumb as the president of the US, and I'm sure you've been every stage of drunk and high while posting.
You know what promises Kim made? I don't. Maybe he didn't promise not to fire small weapons into the sea.Quote:
Yeah, it's retarded on the face to say you have confidence in someone's promise when the preceding sentence conceded that he broke that very promise.
Maybe you should stop putting the POTUS on such a pedestal. Leader of the free world? No he's not. Maybe I don't give a fuck because he doesn't speak for me.Quote:
There's your statement from the leader of the free world.
Ok, this is semi-coherent, and only posted ten minutes ago...Quote:
...if you happen to stumble upon a Trump quote that sounds semi coherent, then feel free to post it right up.
Quote:
Just had a big victory in Federal Court over the Democrats in the House on the desperately needed Border Wall. A big step in the right direction. Wall is under construction!
Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist if I say this sounds like a staff tweet? Many flags: "big", not very big, not the biggest in history... Democrats in the House - accurate language. huge flag! "Big step in the right direction" Not Trump vocabulary. And of course the most egregious: "Wall is under construction" Not "Finish the wall!"
The only trumpian thing about this is the weird capitalization.
I very much prefer video evidence.
You're right to point out that we don't know what he promised because Trump never had Kim put it in writing - he basically paid Kim for the vegetable remains of Otto Wambier, he cancelled troup exercises with SK and elevated KJU on the world stage in exchange for nothing. He claimed "total denuclearization," but ldo NK resumed nuclear proliferation just months after the summit.Quote:
You know what promises Kim made? I don't. Maybe he didn't promise not to fire small weapons into the sea.
You can't stump the Trump.
Skip to 2:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDu9CvbrnlM&t=180s
I know, that was lazy, but I'm eating my dinner. I'll find something later.
I don't know pre-presidential Trump at all, it's possible he became demented or syphilitic but used to be mentally abled. My claim that he's properly retarded is confined to his time as president.
Ok I'm currently watching his speech today in the UK. First 15 mins or so is scripted, both May and Trump reading from notes and blabbering about our special relationship and the Normandy Landings, but they go off script when they start taking questions from the press. Skip to 17:15 and listen to him talk about our Mayor. Not only is he right, he's coherent. Theresa May bottled it, I'd have fucking howled in approval if she answered the question posed to her with a simple "yes". But that's irrelevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo6nGm5K4Lk&t=381s
I'm not having any difficulty understanding what he's saying.
You could have just gone with the obvious ones, like the Angles were from Denmark, or that you probably have Viking, Celtic, Roman and French blood in you as much as German. But I'm impressed you just made up your own version of history for the sake of argument instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga