Synagogue shooting

[Doreena]

Doreena,

I'm sure there are a few democrats who have a few bits of evidence to support their 'facts'. But that's the rare exception, and from many things you've written here, you're not one of them.

My first example. How on earth can you really say what Hillary said was "making a poor joke"? Had Trump said the exact same thing in the exact same conversation, every media outlet for the next 28 days would be calling him a racist & demanding immediate resignation. But, please, Doreena, prove me wrong. Take your best shot at explaining how that comment was not blatantly racist. And explain why all of the MSM didn't even mention it. Please provide evidence to support your 'fact' that it was just a poor joke. And more evidence (#2), please quote times when Trump said anything even close to that in the past 20 years.

And let me give you a third shot at this. You said you never heard HRC incite violence. Just the other day she said they would not be civil until they win. How else can that be interpreted? What, 'not civil' means they don't pass the salt & pepper?

For the minister crazy lady, who said anything about being 'perfect'? Being a decent human being is all we ask, and a minister knows how to hold things together in stressful situations. Caring for people does not include going crazy. So, with that I showed your fourth evidence-free fact regarding her inexcusable behavior. This is your 4th chance, present some real evidence to excuse the inexcusable behavior.

There are 4 examples where you've presented evidence-free 'facts' in a single post. Please prove me wrong.

Post-edit: My apologies if this seems rude. I don't mean it as an insult. But I respect truth. Facts, real facts, facts that have evidence that validates them. And the modern democrat party is completely lacking truth. That is where my anger is directed, not really at Doreena. You're just a victim of their deception, which makes you party to the crime sadly.

I found what she said easily with a quick search, as you did not specify what you were referring to, so the incident IS on mainstream media. If not, I would not have been able to know what you were talking about. While I said it is not a great moment, one interpretation is that she was trying to embarrass the host who made the error. I find that credible. And that is based on the sources that mentioned it...now, on trump, he called Hispanics drug dealing rapists. He attacked the gold star family ... Ghazala Khan, attacking him and saying he didn’t allow his wife to speak. He attacked a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, saying he could not be fair because he was Mexican. He was sued two times for refusing to rent to Black people. He has said that he did not want Blacks counting his money, only Jewish men (which is racist on two points), and also that Blacks are lazy, but that this is an intrinsic racial characteristic ...according to a former Trump president of his casino named O’Donnell. Then there was the infamous birther conspiracy, where he kept implying that his birth certificate was not accurate. Here is another time he supported violence against a Black man... “At a November campaign rally in Alabama, Trump supporters physically attacked an African-American protester after the man began chanting “Black lives matter.” Video of the incident shows the assailants kicking the man after he has already fallen to the ground.

The following day, Trump implied that the attackers were justified.

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Plus, he said that protesting white supremacists were fine people.

Not being civil can mean vocal protests of dissent. I do not see HRC slugging someone nor physically assaulting anyone.

I am only interpreting the minister’s behavior by what she said. I can’t prove or disprove her mindset, but anyone in despair could act as she did. I have been there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TexasFreedom]

Wow, your blindness is truly stunning. Let's break these down:
1. MSM & Hillary's racist comment. Of course you can find it, because conservative sites all covered it. But I said MSM. I challenge you to find a single reference to it on: NY Times, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, even FoxNews. Find an article that talks about her comments and how they could be seen as racist.
1b. (bonus question) Find an example or two over the past 20 years where someone said "they all look alike" specifically talking about black men and it not being considered a racist statement. And I mean outside medical/research/facial recognition stuff.
2. Most of your comments regarding Trump are distorted misinterpretations of what he actually said. For example he did not call all Hispanics drug dealing rapists, in that case he was talking about illegals and that we don't know what they do, it could (and does) include drug dealers and rapists. Those are simple facts. Khan did not let his wife speak, again a simple fact. Telling me a billionaire has been sued is meaningless. The reference to him saying he didn't want blacks counting his money was unsubstantiated. His birther activity was fact-based, not racist (and there are still far too many questions for me to believe the B.C. was genuine). For the video of the assault, I remember that. People were sick of these plants and trouble makers. Trump knew people wanted to have the right to defend themselves. It wasn't black vs white, it was left vs right. How can you say that was any worse than when Obama condoned the Black Panthers intimidating voters at a polling center?
3. Vocal protests are usually civil, I have no problem with them. Hillary doesn't have the strength to blow up a balloon let alone hit someone. I can say the same for Trump, he hasn't directly assaulted anyone since getting elected. If you think Hillary intended to say vocal protests when she said remaining uncivil is blind to the truth. Again, her nickname is "Killary". But she never pulls the trigger.
4. You already excused her behavior. Sure, anyone can 'lose it' and go crazy like she did. That does not mean that we make excuses for their behavior. When it is wrong, that person should be admonished. Yet you refuse to do that. So it's ok for libs to behave that way but not conservatives?

 

[Doreena]

Wow, your blindness is truly stunning. Let's break these down:
1. MSM & Hillary's racist comment. Of course you can find it, because conservative sites all covered it. But I said MSM. I challenge you to find a single reference to it on: NY Times, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, even FoxNews. Find an article that talks about her comments and how they could be seen as racist.
1b. (bonus question) Find an example or two over the past 20 years where someone said "they all look alike" specifically talking about black men and it not being considered a racist statement. And I mean outside medical/research/facial recognition stuff.
2. Most of your comments regarding Trump are distorted misinterpretations of what he actually said. For example he did not call all Hispanics drug dealing rapists, in that case he was talking about illegals and that we don't know what they do, it could (and does) include drug dealers and rapists. Those are simple facts. Khan did not let his wife speak, again a simple fact. Telling me a billionaire has been sued is meaningless. The reference to him saying he didn't want blacks counting his money was unsubstantiated. His birther activity was fact-based, not racist (and there are still far too many questions for me to believe the B.C. was genuine). For the video of the assault, I remember that. People were sick of these plants and trouble makers. Trump knew people wanted to have the right to defend themselves. It wasn't black vs white, it was left vs right. How can you say that was any worse than when Obama condoned the Black Panthers intimidating voters at a polling center?
3. Vocal protests are usually civil, I have no problem with them. Hillary doesn't have the strength to blow up a balloon let alone hit someone. I can say the same for Trump, he hasn't directly assaulted anyone since getting elected. If you think Hillary intended to say vocal protests when she said remaining uncivil is blind to the truth. Again, her nickname is "Killary". But she never pulls the trigger.
4. You already excused her behavior. Sure, anyone can 'lose it' and go crazy like she did. That does not mean that we make excuses for their behavior. When it is wrong, that person should be admonished. Yet you refuse to do that. So it's ok for libs to behave that way but not conservatives?

A lot of what you said is subject to interpretation. Maybe the reason that even fox “news” did not cover this and only news sources marked as extremely biased to the right did is that the more mainstream .... including right leaning and left as well as centrist... is because it wasn’t really news.
I would say exactly the same thing about a minister regardless of their political affiliation, pro trump or anti, same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[brandx]

I am getting to the point that I don't read these stories any longer ,they are not going to go away they will continue to happen,it may sound callous but if it doesn't happen in my back yard I don't care anymore

I have to admit that it does get old and knowing that it just goes on and on. I mean the investigations, etc, then the court battles and crap like that. How many witnesses do you need?? Just hang the SOB. I get tired of all the politics, I don't care if he is mentally ill or raised by wolves or whatever. I would pay more attention if justice was dealt out quickly for these nut jobs.

 

[brandx]

Not sure what you are complaining about. Here is the information on the suggestion about armed guards: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...-Synagogue-Shooting-Pittsburgh-498790791.html

I think what I read about guards getting shot was early on, apparently it was the responding police and SWAT team that got shot.... “In all, two police officers and two SWAT officers were wounded in the confrontation, Hissrich said. Three of them were shot, according to the city's public safety department.”

About the hair: https://apple.news/Aq5sD1kxsQpWk4acOxLfluA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All sensible churches have security. In my area it is by the gun toting congregation.

 

[brandx]

P7, I agree this has always been going on (Jack the Ripper?). But I think the frequency has gone up dramatically in the past few decades. 40 years ago there might have been 1 school shooting each year. Recently it's more like one each week or two. Yes, quicker 'news', but there is much more to report as well.

That is one good reason for a reduction of the population, schools with 4000 students are you kidding me. That is just asking for trouble. Consolidation to reduce expenses bologna. Small intimate schools do not have these kinds of issues. Too many people crowded in to small areas, people lose their identities. I'd rather be one in 100 than one in thousands.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I found what she said easily with a quick search, as you did not specify what you were referring to, so the incident IS on mainstream media. If not, I would not have been able to know what you were talking about. While I said it is not a great moment, one interpretation is that she was trying to embarrass the host who made the error. I find that credible. And that is based on the sources that mentioned it...now, on trump, he called Hispanics drug dealing rapists. He attacked the gold star family ... Ghazala Khan, attacking him and saying he didn’t allow his wife to speak. He attacked a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, saying he could not be fair because he was Mexican. He was sued two times for refusing to rent to Black people. He has said that he did not want Blacks counting his money, only Jewish men (which is racist on two points), and also that Blacks are lazy, but that this is an intrinsic racial characteristic ...according to a former Trump president of his casino named O’Donnell. Then there was the infamous birther conspiracy, where he kept implying that his birth certificate was not accurate. Here is another time he supported violence against a Black man... “At a November campaign rally in Alabama, Trump supporters physically attacked an African-American protester after the man began chanting “Black lives matter.” Video of the incident shows the assailants kicking the man after he has already fallen to the ground.

The following day, Trump implied that the attackers were justified.

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Plus, he said that protesting white supremacists were fine people.

Not being civil can mean vocal protests of dissent. I do not see HRC slugging someone nor physically assaulting anyone.

I am only interpreting the minister’s behavior by what she said. I can’t prove or disprove her mindset, but anyone in despair could act as she did. I have been there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Everything you have stated is an incorrect opinion of what the truth is. Your believing that the truth is what the leftist media says the truth is. Research what the truth is, if you cant find it dont just go along with what the media says it is. It is unknown untill you find the truth. I will give you kne example, Obama's BC, both the left and the right are correct.

Obama BirthCert is a forgery and the real one has never been publicly revealed, however it was not to hide where he was born, which was actually in Kenya, it was to hide his true birth father, so Obama was chosen to be his birth father. If Obama was to be his birth father then Barrack would not be elliagble to be President because he was born in Kenya. But B. Obama was born in Kenya and his birth father was F. M. Davis, who was a U.S. citizen and would make Barrack a natural born citizen even though he was born in Kenya. In order to hide who his birth father Frank Marshal Davis, a communist who had a twisted sexual affair with Barracks mother out of wedlock, he was alienated by Barracks mothers family and they wanted a legitimate father for thete grandson. Thats where Obama comes in. In order to hide who his real father was and make him elligable to be president, they had to fake where he was born on his birth certificate.
When the investigation determined he was elligable to president, it was correct. The claims that his birth cert was fake was also correct.

 

[Doreena]

Everything you have stated is an incorrect opinion of what the truth is. Your believing that the truth is what the leftist media says the truth is. Research what the truth is, if you cant find it dont just go along with what the media says it is. It is unknown untill you find the truth. I will give you kne example, Obama's BC, both the left and the right are correct.

Obama BirthCert is a forgery and the real one has never been publicly revealed, however it was not to hide where he was born, which was actually in Kenya, it was to hide his true birth father, so Obama was chosen to be his birth father. If Obama was to be his birth father then Barrack would not be elliagble to be President because he was born in Kenya. But B. Obama was born in Kenya and his birth father was F. M. Davis, who was a U.S. citizen and would make Barrack a natural born citizen even though he was born in Kenya. In order to hide who his birth father Frank Marshal Davis, a communist who had a twisted sexual affair with Barracks mother out of wedlock, he was alienated by Barracks mothers family and they wanted a legitimate father for thete grandson. Thats where Obama comes in. In order to hide who his real father was and make him elligable to be president, they had to fake where he was born on his birth certificate.
When the investigation determined he was elligable to president, it was correct. The claims that his birth cert was fake was also correct.

And your proof of all this is?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[user 5745]

And your proof of all this is?

I was just about to ask which media Rellgar had used for this, myself ​

 

[Proud Prepper]

And your proof of all this is?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Its not from the leftist media or main stream controlled medias that you get your information from. Where is your proof that any of this is false?

 

[user 5745]

Its not from the leftist media or main stream controlled medias that you get your information from. Where is your proof that any of this is false?

As the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls on you. In matters like this, a claim made without evidence is just another useless opinion adding nothing but noise to a conversation.

Stokes wrote a good article on this in 2012: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

 

[DrHenley]

Actually, the burden of proof fell on Obama himself to provide adequate proof that he was a natural born citizen. His "proof" was not forthcoming at first, and then very dubious.

I personally have never disputed his citizenship, as I considered his mother's citizenship as adequate.

 

[Proud Prepper]

As the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls on you. In matters like this, a claim made without evidence is just another useless opinion adding nothing but noise to a conversation. What nonesence

Stokes wrote a good article on this in 2012: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

I have no burden, nor an obligation to prove anything to you. Proof is objectionable for each person. I know what I believe is the truth in this matter. Im offering you the truth as I see it. Its up to you to decide what you believe is the the truth and whether your satisfied with it. If your satisfied that the truth is what you read from state controlled media sources that are biased and manipulated for mamy alterior motives, its your choice.

Stokes, lol what a joke.

 

[Proud Prepper]

Actually, the burden of proof fell on Obama himself to provide adequate proof that he was a natural born citizen. His "proof" was not forthcoming at first, and then very dubious.

I personally have never disputed his citizenship, as I considered his mother's citizenship as adequate.

Yes he was always eligable to be POTUS, It was used as a decoy to hide who his real father is.

 

[user 5745]

I have no burden, nor an obligation to prove anything to you. Proof is objectionable for each person. I know what I believe is the truth in this matter. Im offering you the truth as I see it. Its up to you to decide what you believe is the the truth and whether your satisfied with it. If your satisfied that the truth is what you read from state controlled media sources that are biased and manipulated for mamy alterior motives, its your choice.

Then why did you ask Doreena for proof that what you claim is false? Is it only people who disagree with you who have to prove things? Giving evidence for one's belief or position helps other people to make that decision for themselves, and refusal to provide it often indicates that it is absent. If you are so confident then why do you not want to share this rock-solid evidence?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Proof is objectionable for each person.' If you really mean 'objectionable' then could you unpack that a bit - in what way would each person find proof objectionable? Or did you mean to type 'objective', which could also do with clarification, or perhaps 'subjective'?

Which of Stokes' points do you find laughable, and why? He seems to me to make a perfectly valid point, that personal opinion is fine in itself but when being used for debate needs to be backed up with evidence in order to be more than pointless distraction.

 

[Proud Prepper]

Then why did you ask Doreena for proof that what you claim is false? Is it only people who disagree with you who have to prove things? Giving evidence for one's belief or position helps other people to make that decision for themselves, and refusal to provide it often indicates that it is absent. If you are so confident then why do you not want to share this rock-solid evidence? Me asking for proof was to show the absurdity of what proof is.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Proof is objectionable for each person.' If you really mean 'objectionable' then could you unpack that a bit - in what way would each person find proof objectionable? Or did you mean to type 'objective', which could also do with clarification, or perhaps 'subjective'? That was an inncorrect word to use, use subjective in its place.

Which of Stokes' points do you find laughable, and why? He seems to me to make a perfectly valid point, that personal opinion is fine in itself but when being used for debate needs to be backed up with evidence in order to be more than pointless distraction.

Me asking for proof was to show the absurdity of what proof is.

That was an inncorrect word to use, use subjective in its place.

Most of Stokes points is drivel to me. Im not in a debate. There is no benifit to me what you believe to be true or false. I'm offering assistance to others on there ignorance of media manipulations as to what they say truth is and was using Obama's birth certificate as an example.

 

[user 5745]

Me asking for proof was to show the absurdity of what proof is.

That was an inncorrect word to use, use subjective in its place.

Most of Stokes points is drivel to me. Im not in a debate. There is no benifit to me what you believe to be true or false. I'm offering assistance to others on there ignorance of media manipulations as to what they say truth is and was using Obama's birth certificate as an example.

Yet saying only, 'I believe x and it's true,' without showing your methods or sources, doesn't assist. It comes over as pulp-novel villain schtick: 'Aha, you fools, you lack my sooper-seekrit wisdom!'

 

[Proud Prepper]

Yet saying only, 'I believe x and it's true,' without showing your methods or sources, doesn't assist. It comes over as pulp-novel villain schtick: 'Aha, you fools, you lack my sooper-seekrit wisdom!'

I understand your views and I wont disagree. My reasoning for not showing you the methods that you except, such as links and what not, is that those are just more opinions and almost always are not entirely truthful. You need to investigate the event and uncover the truth from all the sources and piece together the bits and pieces of the truth untill the complete truth is revealed. On matters such as Obamas BC, kennedy assasination, cures for cancer, etc... etc... you will never get the entire truth from controlled media sources and no other media source will be freely allowed to distribute the entire truth. You can get pieces of it though. Then you must put the pieces together and be able to fill in blanks. This makes it nearly impossable to point to one or even several media docs to prove the truth. What really validates the truth for someone is the journey in discovering it, rather than being shown it.

I do want to help others know the truth of things that matter to them. I hope this exsplains how I have found the truth. I hope everyone understands that truthful knowledge is the ultimate power and it not freely shared by those who wish to have power over others.

 

[tmttactical]

We call it a ROSE, the media call it a thorny bush and the scientific community have a nice Latin name for it. Bottom line, it smell nice, has thorns and is valued or not by the person encountering it. The media does lie--- on both sides. Fact finding is troublesome because the facts are presented by bias humans. As in all things not witnessed / tested by the person presenting the point / fact, it is just opinion for further discussion. There are really few facts in life. The sun does rise in the western sky and sets in the eastern sky, that is a fact. Anything to do with the population / people and governments are opinions. JMHO.

 

[Doreena]

We call it a ROSE, the media call it a thorny bush and the scientific community have a nice Latin name for it. Bottom line, it smell nice, has thorns and is valued or not by the person encountering it. The media does lie--- on both sides. Fact finding is troublesome because the facts are presented by bias humans. As in all things not witnessed / tested by the person presenting the point / fact, it is just opinion for further discussion. There are really few facts in life. The sun does rise in the western sky and sets in the eastern sky, that is a fact. Anything to do with the population / people and governments are opinions. JMHO.

Yes, I agree. However what I try to do is keep the source in mind and treat it accordingly. There are several sources that rate the objectivity in (although that is a dream) news sources. I weigh out how they fall in the center, leaning or extreme chart on both sides.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk