Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt formally exonerated


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2021 at 11:05 PM, psyche101 said:

At work we've got Anastasia Pallet jack doing the rounds but at home she's Anastasia Pluckachook :lol:

I keep wanting to call her Captain Bligh - I apparently cannot tell the difference between the two women. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 10/16/2021 at 1:38 PM, Paranoid Android said:

You still haven’t demonstrated that they are “victims”. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so! Put it in perspective, if the lockdown protesters in Sydney or Melbourne do something that warrants a jury trial, are you suggesting that I (on account of simply living in Sydney) am a “victim” of the protesters? Unless my property is physically threatened by protesters (eg, the protesters march through my street and literally vandalise my house) I’m no more or less a victim than anyone else in the world. 

Yes, the angry mob marched to the Capitol damaging property and fighting police along the way. Many had family they were concerned about, the big protests started the day before. There was the Rally to Revival, the Rally to save America, the Save the Republican Rally and an idiotic Rally called the One Nation Under God Rally organised by the Phoenix Stop the Steal group. They had plenty to contend with. The town was inundated with right wing Trump supporters. 

You must be aware of all the nonsense that lead up to that disgraceful action? 

Quote

That said, democracy isn't a kangaroo court. There are still laws and rules to follow. I don't think you fully realise the slippery slope you are on, but I'm happy to move on. 

I think you are too interested in letting people who have done the wrong thing get the best chance they can have to escape justice. I'm half expecting you to suggest Johnny Cochrane defend them.

The courts will decide. Your feel the media had tainted the people to swing the trial, yet they couldn't get Hilary elected. I simply don't believe you. I don't think the media had had the level of influence you have convinced yourself that it does. 

Quote

 I did tell you when I brought up this statistic that it was one I heard verbally in a podcast by a lawyer, and therefore to take it with a grain of salt if that was your wish. 

Honestly, considering our discussion, isn't it at least a bit important to establish the truth of that statement? 

You have done what you are exactly complaining about. People accepting one source as gospel because it agreed with their political orientation. 

Quote

Regardless, getting back to my point. You can define “insurrection” any manner you like. Fact is that there was no organised attempt at insurrection. What happened at the capitol cannot be described as an “insurrection”. And no one is being charged with “insurrection”.

How is the Capitol riot not a violent uprising against any authority? 

That's what the dictionary definition states. It can't be defined however one wants, the dictionary has the final word there. 

Quote

We are completely at odds, you’ve already gone on record saying you want them all charged with Intimidation, which already demonstrates you also think they are guilty of more than they are.

What would you describe an angry mob breaking your door down as?

Quote

Then somewhere along the lines we’ve missed what the other is saying. It does seem like we are both arguing for the same thing. However, if the city is as polarised as my statistics suggest, then a change of venue would seem the absolute minimum that should happen.

Trump turned America into a TV reality show.

If your claiming that the media message influenced residents I can't see how changing states would make a difference unless it was held in a pro Trump state. Then it would be biased to support a stolen election which we all know is a big steaming pile of crap.  I think the situation won't be improved upon what it already is. 

Quote

I’m trying to work out whether you don’t know much about the Cosby case, or whether you are just letting your bias get in the way of our discussion. What I mean by him being “punished” for his crimes, is that in order to get a testimony in civil court, the prosecutor explicitly took criminal proceedings off the table! That’s not guesswork, that’s a matter of fact - the prosecutor made a deal with Cosby that he would not prosecute him in criminal court in order to shore up the civil case.

Prosecutors make those deals all the time! That is not a loophole, that is a legally binding fact! Finding an article from the left-wing USAToday with an opinion writer calling it a “loophole” doesn’t make it a loophole. It's a bit scary that you actually describe Suzette Hackney, a USAToday columnist and author of your article as an "expert" testimony on this. 

The prosecutor COULD have used different tactics. The prosecutor could have decided to bring a criminal trial against Cosby, or he could have simply left the threat hanging over his head. Instead, the prosecutor chose to make a deal. Again, no loophole. You could argue the prosecutor messed up by promising not to criminally prosecute, but a prosecutor making a mistake is also not a loophole. 

Either way, IF that happened and the prosecutor did not take the threat of criminal proceedings off the table, when Cosby was sued in civil court, he would have pleaded the fifth amendment and we would have no testimony. Instead, with a deal in place from the prosecutor not to pursue criminal charges, Cosby lost his Fifth Amendment privilege and was forced to take the stand in civil court.  

You cannot take a person’s rights away from them (namely the Fifth Amendment), and then use the testimony that came directly from that testimony in order to criminally charge him! 

To all that, one simple question.

Where is that promise to not prosecute shown in writing? 

Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.

Quote

Why do feelings matter in a court of law? It sounds scarily like you are advocating mob justice. If enough people say it is so, it must be so!

It's called victim impact. Quite legitimate in any court of law.

Quote

 Not at all, that is a terrible trait for a school teacher to have.

Honestly, as I go through this I think there is a lot that you have misunderstood about me and you are making a lot of assumptions because you think I have a certain set of political views.

Isn't your main beef that the press leads people around and does their thinking for them?

Quote

 He was an employee of Rebel News at the time the incident happened.

 

Alrighty, my friend, this is where I have to get a little annoyed. This is an annoying debate tactic we call “moving the goal posts”, I’m sure you’re familiar with it. You kept on asking me and asking me about who employs him. I have tried several times to drop the subject, you kept pushing an pushing, and then you ended your last post by saying “I suspect the latter”. Then when it turns out you were wrong, you double down and say “well he’s the only one in the country”. If it didn’t matter if he was an employee of Rebel or a freelancer, then why are we having this discussion?  

Either 1- he is a freelancer, in which case you were going to ridicule him as not even a permanent employee, or 2- he is an employee of Rebel, in which case you were going to ridicule him for being the only employee in Oz. 

Come on, mate! That's a horrible debate tactic and it truly gets my goat. By the way, I am certain I’ve done the same thing from time to time. It’s not necessarily a conscious thing, but it is still a terrible debate tactic. If I ever do this, please call me out on it because it is not a good way to discuss topics. 

It's a fair question.

You claimed he was a reporter. It's a very loose definition for what he does. I'm trying to establish if he is a reporter at all. I would say no.

I don't mean to offend you, Avi as a person offends me. Yes I will discredit him at every opportunity. Apart from the obvious his lies about being thrown to the ground was where I also really learned to loathe him. He is an anti authority anarchist who is a menace to society. He is as unaustralian as a person can possibly be. If he ever comes to a protest here in SE QLD you can be certain that I will shirt front him. See if that makes the camera. I'm not a cop. I don't have to behave for the camera. 

Quote

And we could spend the rest of eternity making smart ass quips to each other, that won’t get us anywhere.

No, but we can chuckle at who had the best poke in the ribs. 

That's where I like to think our discussions differ. They really are about subject matter. I can take as good as I get.

Quote

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!

And mathematicians. 

Quote

Yeah, after it all hits the fan and everything has fallen to crap, someone finally holds him accountable. Can you see I’m not impressed by this? 

Yes, but you can also see nobody be yes away with everything for ever. I'm just glad he finally was held accountable. Better late than never. 

I think I've mentioned that some American posters here thought he should stay in office because his business experience would be too hard to replace. And that was a right wing poster. 

They must think quite differently there. 

Quote

 It’s a poor attempt at justification. It makes several assumptions (eg, that there is inequity and that the violence is an appropriate response to such inequity) and excuses the violence for those reasons. Trying to make it more palatable by couching this in terms you think I would relate to doesn't absolve him. 

Or maybe I'm not as much of a libertarian as I thought...

I just read it very differently. Obviously there is more than one way to interpret it. I read it as saying violent actions aren't politically orientated, but protesting the lack of political action where it's desperately needed. I feel his point is one protest regardless of violence isn't any more justified than any other when the leaders initiated it through inaction. They are to blame rather than the protestors.

You can't see that in the entire quote?

Quote

 :blink: This is news to me, as far as I know he has not faced any kind of justice. There was some kind of probe/inquiry, and that inquiry determined that there is enough evidence to show that Cuomo was guilty of sexual harassment. However, that is not a court case, nor is it a lawyer, nor was a judge involved. Heck, the contents of the Report isn’t even that useful to a judge if the courts do decide to proceed with criminal sanctions against Cuomo. Any prosecutor would have to present the evidence itself, a dossier produced by a government department in course of an employment investigation over a governor is not “evidence”.   

He faced a goernment hearing and then stepped down/resigned from his job. That is not facing court! 

Yes sorry, you're right. I was referring to Attorney General Letitia James report that was based on the testimony of eleven victims. The court cases are coming. I thought the report was used in a court.

Quote

 So you do admit that the spin exists, that the spin goes beyond the scope of the judge’s comments, but still accept that they are doing the right thing because it sells papers (or clicks, whatever)…

I wasn’t aware truth was decided by how much the story was worth to a publisher! Actually, this sort of ties into the thread I started a day or so back, I'll reply to that as soon as I've finished with this post. 

Truth doesn't have to be comprised.

You can't tell me you never realised this. Sales and competition are how jobs work. 

This pertains well to the other thread. The headline is ambiguous so you have read it as fear mongering, yet you have to admit the actual article is factual and clears up the ambiguity in the headline.

That's called a knee jerk reaction. Your reacting before you know the facts based in your interpretation of a sentence. 

No lies were actually told. You read the headline and assumed that would be the case. 

Have you honestly never known this? How do you think they get one to buy the bulletin over the daily mail? 

I thought everyone understood business and competition? 

Quote

Yay, more things to dismiss!

You have to be kidding me. Your complaining about media bias and then recommend a source that is known for fabricating evidence? 

Seriously?

Give me one good reason not to dismiss Veritas at it's mention! 

Quote

 I was being hyperbolic. My point was that it’s a lot easier to find negative stuff about right wing personalities than it is to find negative stuff about left wingers using Google. I didn’t literally mean you can’t find anything.

One search 

First result.

How did that happen then? Took me like two seconds to find that link. 

Quote

 Like I said, I don’t watch Tucker so I don’t know what he said, and I only know of the news story in passing. However, the bare basic facts of the matter seem to be that Tucker said the NSA was spying on him, then it turns out the NSA was spying on him.

How much of what Tucker said on air about the spying was “speculation” consistent with the nature of his talk show? And therefore how much of it is an expected part of his job? 

He said a whistleblower contacted him and said the NSA was targeting him for his views and were going to shut him down.

Ad it turns out, his name was mentioned by third parties that were being investigated and as such was in that transcript. 

No, the basic facts are not that the NSA was spying on him. Carlson made an exaggerated claim to seem relevant.

Quote

 I must have missed your reply, unless you were talking to someone else. In any case, Gab is the biggest one that I know of too. I don’t know of any other Facebook alternative.

It was early in the discussion. 

There's Trump's forum too. I suspect that's where bee went. Haven't seen her since he started it. 

What about communities like Reddit?

Quote

I have watched plenty of ABC, and it has always been filled with lies.

You must be watching a different to me. Perhaps the American one.

You call this lies? 

Quote

At your prompting I specifically went to look up Paul Barry, who I have since determined can sometimes do good journalism, but often his “Media Watch” segment is simply a propaganda segment for left-wing talking points. He refuses to hold his own company to the standards he subjects other news companies too, and the standards he uses to smear people he doesn’t agree with can be anything from good (some of his work highlighting statistics quoted by Sky News demonstrated how those stats were taken out of context) to the outright terrible (simply a smear campaign with zero facts and plenty of derogatory comments in his segment about Rukshan Fernando and another guy who I don’t want to discuss with you)

What about Wil Anderson? Shaun Mcaleff? Chas Licciardello? Jan Fran? Dr Karl? 

I keep saying there is wide diversity but you keep focused on Barry, no doubt because Sky took aim at him. Yet, he still does a great job. You're upset that he doesn't oust his employer. Perhaps he prefers to keep his job and report as much disparity as he can. Next to Avi and Rukshana, he's a university professor and a genuine Saint.

This is where I second guess you. 

No doubt you're referring to the wife basher. You have a very unbalanced regarding that cretin. 

Rukshan now. Crikey Moses mate. You get all your news from dregs st the bottom of the barrel don't you!!! He's another one I'll shape up to if I ever see him. His life goal seems to be to turn people against authority at any cost. Not many as as low as Avi, but he is bloody close. 

These guys aren't reporting news that mainstream won't. These aholes take opportunistic photos to learn but their narrative and push their right wing views. 

Another one with no discernible ethics, no accountability, no code of conduct and no guidelines. 

Here is the video and transcript of Paul Barry describing these scumbags for what they are.

Please quote what is so unfair and biased.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/protests/13560050

Smear campaign my butt. That's real reporting of the incident as it happened. Quotes from people and journalists at the scene. You noticed that Seven news was mentioned, the rough experiences those ahole so called protestors tipping urine on him and throwing objects at him. I mentioned Paul Dowsley before about Avis thrown to the ground lie. Avis fans made death threats because he would not lie for Avi. That's what you are supporting here.

That's not my Australia mate. And I'll put in all my effort to put a steel capped boot up every ahole that tries crap like that in my town. 

Barry was kind to that prick if anything as far as I'm concerned. I would have been much more open. 

Paul Barry is a thousand times the man both Avi and Rukshan are tied together and folded over. Good god you have some strange heroes. Every person you have mentioned so far is an independent right wing ahole who manipulate the public with right wing rhetoric to instigate violence. And zero actual qualifications. A wife basher and a wedding photographer. What a pair they make. 

What the hell dude. These ******s are a hundred times worse than anyone in mainstream. 

Quote

 I was just sharing how a lot of people end up voting, I’m not saying everyone does, or that this is how you should vote.

Have you considered how many people vote a certain way because their parents did? I'd say it has as much to do with voting as any policy for a great many people. Otherwise I don't think right wing would be an option anymore. It would simply be a noisy minority. 

Quote

 You are falling in to a trap. Yes, you were referring to Australia, not those other countries. But when we talk about making things better or worse, simply observing that we had a better PM 20 years ago doesn’t mean that “things can’t get worse”. If we stick with democracy, maybe things can't get worse, but if we (hypothetically) were to redesign our democracy to any other political system, it’s possible (I’d actually argue probable) that things would get worse, not better. And not just worse by Australian standards, such a change could potentially push us down a path in which Australia becomes basically Cuba 2.0. 

What trap? 

It's my own idea. 

Germany keeps Chancellor's for years on end. No dictators arising though.

Quote

Btw, if the government ever puts it to a referendum to change from a PM to a CEO, I'm voting no! 

I can't see it happening. Much as I think it's a great idea, being mine and all. 

It would be too hard for a monopoly to control of the head of the country didn't have people to appease but goals to achieve. It wouldn't get the support it deserves and people fear change even when it's for the better.

Quote

 Whatever!

boot-fits.gif

 

:lol:

Quote

So at the worst they are equal in dodginess to CNN???

As far as you seem to be concerned. I assume it's an example you can work with. Never watched it myself.

Quote

 Every side in politics has their own conspiracy theories. It’s not just a right-wing thing. 2/3rds of democrats believed Trump colluded with Russia, even today I believe that number is roughly true. But we have the Mueller Report (among other things) that definitively proves no collusion, and yet the majority of democrats still hold that to be true. Would that not be a “conspiracy theory” too?

The Mueller report says there was definitely collusion. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The Mueller report was what was quoted as being unable to charge a sitting president. 

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

Quote

 I’m afraid it is you who have been misled by the media, but as I didn’t join this thread or begin this conversation to argue the merits of Biden vs Trump I’m going to move on.  

Go ahead move on.

One man talked.

One man did.

That's all that matters. 

Quote

Fair enough, I guess I did misunderstand you there.

Incidentally, here’s a short breakdown of current polling for the president. This is one of those “independent YouTubers” to whom I referred. I guess it's hard to see how Hilary could possibly have an approval rate lower than the current prez. 

 

That's someone whining about his work after being elected not before.

What's with the anti vax crap angle? 

You do know that these are the milestones I'm talking about. If Biden was a CEO under my idea, he would be looking at the Whitehouse from the outside now. If he missed milestones it's game over, next one please. 

Quote

 Not “failing” overall, but they did fail in that instance!

Spectacularly. 

Yet you tell me their methods work?

Not in the one thing they really wanted.

That's not very convincing for your media grievances. The biggest attempt in a decade and it failed. 

Quote

 He’s not a sitting president now, so what’s stopping them from charging him now he’s just a regular citizen? Nothing! But they don’t charge him because he hasn’t been guilty of any crimes. This is media spin, pure and simple! Tell me what he did that warranted a charge, and tell me why he hasn't been charged now that he is no longer president? 

I'll give you a hint - you can't because no such thing happened. There was a whole media spin campaign trying to make it seem like Trump only survived because he couldn't be charged. That was a lie too, one you have gleefully bought into! 

Read the Mueller report then. It sounds like you have not. 

Why isn't he charged now? That's a bloody good question, not an answer. He should be. A lot of people feel he should be. He can afford good lawyers I suppose.

Quote

They lie about those things all the time! I can think of multiple examples in the current administration alone (eg, Joe Biden did not finish at or near the top of his class despite Biden saying otherwise, Harris lied about wanting "fee-dom" at a civil rights march). And these are just off the top of my head, let alone if I were to actually dig up their past.

More importantly, though, I don’t see how you can decide a person’s ability to make laws on your behalf based on personality traits. That’s about as dumb (in my opinion) as those people who voted for Obama just because he was black, or voted for Hilary just because she was a woman. Those facts have nothing to do with whether they are a good leader or not, yet a lot of people made decisions to vote based solely on this.

Well you can consider a biography a lie. It's not hard to find out. Those examples you mentioned weren't in biographies.

Your missing way too much here. I don't seem to be able to get the point across but you will know of someone had always tried to help the community, you will know who was born with a silver spoon, never worked a day in their life and are out of touch. You will who is a self made person and understands the working life. Activities during life will illustrate a sense of fairness, if the person is bigotted and why. Where they brought up to be caring or harsh. All these things make up a person, how they will think and act. 

I don't think you understand the value of looking inside someone's head to understand them. 

Quote

In fact, I’m pretty sure I recall commentators such as Mona Eltahawy go on ABC’s Q+A in the aftemath of the 2016 election and literally say that white women who voted for Donald Trump “put their whiteness before their womanness” (I thought that was a direct quote, but I can’t find the match in Google – meh, if it wasn’t Mona it was someone else like her and it still makes my point).

I don't know of the instance but I would disagree with it. I would pay good money to see Trump in a ring with the husband of one of the married women he hit on or grabbed or worse That's an absolute pathetic example of a human being. I really hate cheaters. Infidelity is an ultimate betrayal. You have no idea how much I hate those people. With all my hate in fact!!!!!! 

Quote

 Same, I enjoy the discussion. My partner reads some of the stuff I’m putting up and she just rolls her eyes, she doesn't get why I like posting here. 

Intellectual discussion is stimulating and enjoyable. I like talking to you because you actually discuss subjects. Nobody wants an echo chamber on a forum. Agreeing is fine but if you don't push your limits you don't know what they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, the angry mob marched to the Capitol damaging property and fighting police along the way. Many had family they were concerned about, the big protests started the day before. There was the Rally to Revival, the Rally to save America, the Save the Republican Rally and an idiotic Rally called the One Nation Under God Rally organised by the Phoenix Stop the Steal group. They had plenty to contend with. The town was inundated with right wing Trump supporters. 

You must be aware of all the nonsense that lead up to that disgraceful action? 

Those rallies were legal. If anyone at those rallies actively broke the law, then they should be charged. Otherwise, I don't see how what they did was wrong, and certainly I don't see how these rallies happening makes people who live there a victim. I am not a victim just because protests happened in Sydney! The residents of Washington are not victims simply for living in a city where a protest happened, even one that turned ugly.

 

Quote

You have done what you are exactly complaining about. People accepting one source as gospel because it agreed with their political orientation.

 I admit my research is not complete in this regard.

 

Quote

How is the Capitol riot not a violent uprising against any authority? 

That's what the dictionary definition states. It can't be defined however one wants, the dictionary has the final word there. 

9a5e411bcef2895088754ac24a6568bc-23.jpg?

Such a violent uprising against authority! Don't let looks fool you, this woman is ready to cable tie any politician she finds! 

 

Quote

What would you describe an angry mob breaking your door down as?

Maybe you can make that argument for the first people who turned up at the capitol and broke down the barriers. There simply wasn't enough police there to stop it (if there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation now - and like I've said countless times, someone is responsible for that lack of police presence, I know the Commissioner resigned because of it, but I don't know and I don't think we'll ever truly know whether it was an oversight on his part, or whether he was just a patsy taking the fall for someone else's decision).

In any case, the initial surge could be regarded as intimidation. However, there were thousands of people behind that initial group who turned up and simply saw open doors and people treating it like a sightseeing tour (see the old lady above, for example). They can be charged with trespassing. That's what most of them have been charged with. But they are not guilty of intimidation.

The courts haven't charged them with that, this is what YOU want. 

 

Quote

To all that, one simple question.

Where is that promise to not prosecute shown in writing? 

Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.

 Thank Christ the Court of Appeals didn't agree with you. It is scary to me that you think a public declaration by the chief prosecutor is not legally binding! 

At the end of the day, the courts declared that you are wrong and I am right. Finding a USAToday columnist to call that a loophole (even a "brilliant loophole", as the author described it) doesn't make it a loophole. And describing her as an "expert" doesn't make her an expert.    

 

 

Quote

It's called victim impact. Quite legitimate in any court of law.

We're back at calling these people "victims". You still haven't provided any proof of this! 

 

Quote

It's a fair question.

You claimed he was a reporter. It's a very loose definition for what he does. I'm trying to establish if he is a reporter at all. I would say no.

I shall vigorously disagree - you were smearing him as a nobody, you just thought you could do it by saying he isn't even a regular employee, just a freelancer who only gets paid when he has something Ezra can trump up to make him money (thus not a real journalist). When that failed you cut and tried the next best option - well he's the only one in Australia, he's so unimportant that he's one employee in a country of 27 million people (thus not a real journalist). 

Don't try to deny it, I know spin when I see it, whichever answer I gave you were going to rubbish it. As such, this is one more reason why I don't want to discuss Avi with you.

 

Quote

If he ever comes to a protest here in SE QLD you can be certain that I will shirt front him. See if that makes the camera. I'm not a cop. I don't have to behave for the camera.

You'd become a figurehead for the intolerant left! Look at all these lefties, always claiming to be peaceful and wanting peace and wanting to live together in harmony. Obviously what they mean is they want peace with people who agree with everything they agree with! And if they don't get peace (that is, if there are people who they disagree with) they are willing to use violence to make it so, that's how deranged the left is! 

Yes, I'm spinning it already, but I guarantee you that's the spin that would be run with if you wanted to get violent with someone like that! You would become an example of the intolerant left to thousands of conservatives around Australia and millions around the world!

As I think about it, perhaps they would have a point - the media paints the left as tolerant and accepting, and the right as bigots and violent extremists, yet the threats of violence are coming from allegedly peaceful left-wingers like yourself! Right wing threats are not coming from regular conservatives, they are coming from alt-right bigots and extreme violent thugs that most conservatives do not agree with.  I wouldn't describe you as "alt left", but you are one of those who thinks political violence is ok because the person you are committing it against is someone you don't like! And if you are a reasonable left-winger, then is it reasonable to argue that violence is an acceptable part of left-wing political activism?

For the record, violence is not an acceptable part of any political action, left or right, in my opinion. 

 

 

Quote

No, but we can chuckle at who had the best poke in the ribs. 

I actually thought it was rather annoying!

 

Quote

And mathematicians. 

Touche ;) 

 

Quote

Yes, but you can also see nobody be yes away with everything for ever. I'm just glad he finally was held accountable. Better late than never. 

I think I've mentioned that some American posters here thought he should stay in office because his business experience would be too hard to replace. And that was a right wing poster. 

They must think quite differently there. 

I don't know any right winger who supports Andrew Cuomo, before or after his dismissal. But I do see where they are coming from in the sense that politicians aren't supposed to be bastions of morality. They aren't elected because they represent the morals of everyday Americans, they are elected to do a job. Not liking a person doesn't mean they should be disqualified from public office. Even Andrew Cuomo, if the worst he did was tell a female reporter in 2016 to 'eat a whole sausage". But that wasn't the worst he did, and he's now gone. 

 

Quote

I just read it very differently. Obviously there is more than one way to interpret it. I read it as saying violent actions aren't politically orientated, but protesting the lack of political action where it's desperately needed. I feel his point is one protest regardless of violence isn't any more justified than any other when the leaders initiated it through inaction. They are to blame rather than the protestors.

You can't see that in the entire quote?

 It sounds like he's making excuses for violence. First he makes an assumption that I disagree with - he argues that the violence is a result of inequity, which I think is a load of bull. But more than that, he was justifying the violence as a right and proper response, and that is not right no matter how you spin it! 

 

Quote

You have to be kidding me. Your complaining about media bias and then recommend a source that is known for fabricating evidence? 

Seriously?

Give me one good reason not to dismiss Veritas at it's mention! 

 Because you are being misled. Veritas has been smeared so heavily, without evidence, time and again.

Do you know how many retractions Veritas has forced news organisations to make? I didn't, but Veritas keeps an ongoing tally on their website, the "wall of shame" - https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ - retractions from over 300 journalists and news reports who had to walk back the lies they have used to smear Veritas.

 

 

Quote

One search 

First result.

How did that happen then? Took me like two seconds to find that link. 

 As said, my point was that it is much easier to find dirt on right wingers using google than it is using Google to find negative stuff about left wingers. I didn't say you couldn't find it! I regret using hyperbole. 

 

Quote

He said a whistleblower contacted him and said the NSA was targeting him for his views and were going to shut him down.

Ad it turns out, his name was mentioned by third parties that were being investigated and as such was in that transcript. 

No, the basic facts are not that the NSA was spying on him. Carlson made an exaggerated claim to seem relevant.

As said, I don't know much about this situation, and honestly I don't care enough about Tucker to do enough research to find out. 

 

Quote

You must be watching a different to me. Perhaps the American one.

You call this lies? 

 

I call it propaganda. I call it funny. I don't necessarily call it "news". 

 

Quote

What about Wil Anderson? Shaun Mcaleff? Chas Licciardello? Jan Fran? Dr Karl? 

I keep saying there is wide diversity but you keep focused on Barry, no doubt because Sky took aim at him. Yet, he still does a great job. You're upset that he doesn't oust his employer. Perhaps he prefers to keep his job and report as much disparity as he can. Next to Avi and Rukshana, he's a university professor and a genuine Saint.

This is where I second guess you. 

No doubt you're referring to the wife basher. You have a very unbalanced regarding that cretin. 

Rukshan now. Crikey Moses mate. You get all your news from dregs st the bottom of the barrel don't you!!! He's another one I'll shape up to if I ever see him. His life goal seems to be to turn people against authority at any cost. Not many as as low as Avi, but he is bloody close. 

These guys aren't reporting news that mainstream won't. These aholes take opportunistic photos to learn but their narrative and push their right wing views. 

Another one with no discernible ethics, no accountability, no code of conduct and no guidelines. 

Here is the video and transcript of Paul Barry describing these scumbags for what they are.

Please quote what is so unfair and biased.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/protests/13560050

Smear campaign my butt. That's real reporting of the incident as it happened. Quotes from people and journalists at the scene. You noticed that Seven news was mentioned, the rough experiences those ahole so called protestors tipping urine on him and throwing objects at him. I mentioned Paul Dowsley before about Avis thrown to the ground lie. Avis fans made death threats because he would not lie for Avi. That's what you are supporting here.

That's not my Australia mate. And I'll put in all my effort to put a steel capped boot up every ahole that tries crap like that in my town. 

Barry was kind to that prick if anything as far as I'm concerned. I would have been much more open. 

Paul Barry is a thousand times the man both Avi and Rukshan are tied together and folded over. Good god you have some strange heroes. Every person you have mentioned so far is an independent right wing ahole who manipulate the public with right wing rhetoric to instigate violence. And zero actual qualifications. A wife basher and a wedding photographer. What a pair they make. 

What the hell dude. These ******s are a hundred times worse than anyone in mainstream. 

I chose to check Paul Barry specifically because you kept suggesting him as a foil to the left-wing crap that's spouted on ABC. You even went as far as saying Paul Barry has been "accused of being a right winger" because of his reporting. Whatever that reporting was, I don't know, but the reporting I've seen demonstrates he is as left-wing as they come. 

That was the only reason I singled him out, it had nothing to do with Sky News. I barely watch Sky News (more than I watch Tucker, I suppose, but not much more). 

For the rest, I've no intention of discussing Avi with you, you have an irrational reaction to it and I find it impossible to debate rationally against irrational emotional arguments!

However, ask yourself how Rukshan live streaming for six hours at the protests (ie, having zero chance to edit and tell a misleading narrative) is an example of (as Dr Josh Roose is quoted as saying at the 4:45 timecode in the video you linked): "He films the spectacular... building their narrative"! How is 6 hours of live stream "filming the spectacular", and how is condensing 6 hours of live stream into a 6 second clip for Media Watch a better version of "building their narrative"? At best (and I say at best, really it could be much worse, but I'm not going to waste my time going over it) - Paul Barry and Media Watch are accusing Rukshan Fernando of what they themselves are guilty - #ConfessionThroughProjection

 

Quote

Have you considered how many people vote a certain way because their parents did? I'd say it has as much to do with voting as any policy for a great many people. Otherwise I don't think right wing would be an option anymore. It would simply be a noisy minority. 

I don't know. I broke down the numbers of the article you linked before, and it seems that if everyone voted exactly as their parents did, then you account for the 20% swing to progressive politics that the article you linked identified, and either conservatives will never get in power again, or progressives would never have been in power in the last 50 years. 

 

Quote

You must be watching a different to me. Perhaps the American one.

You call this lies? 

 

 The trap that if we get rid of democracy our freedoms are guaranteed to be secure! They aren't. 

 

Quote

The Mueller report says there was definitely collusion. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The Mueller report was what was quoted as being unable to charge a sitting president. 

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

The sheer misinformation in this document is ridiculous! Below are two videos, both from lawyers who break down the Mueller Report with a lot less spin than this article. In order to avoid claims of bias, I have chosen a very left-wing lawyer (Legal Eagle, he hates Donald Trump and everything he puts out about Donald Trump is negative). It is not flattering. The other is from a right-wing lawyer (and my personal favourite lawyer on YouTubej - despite being right wing, I think he does an excellent job putting his bias aside). There was no collusion, that is a fact!

Moreover, Legal Eagle (who as I said, hates Trump) agrees at the timecode 2:38 that this only applies to Trump during his term in office, and when he is no longer in office he can be charged if he is guilty of crimes worthy of being charged over! And yet here we are.... nearly a year removed from Trump's exit from the White House, and we are no closer to a court case. The media was beating up the story big time, you bought into it and now you're struggling to find reasons why the prosecutors don't charge Trump now he's out of office (hint: it's not because of his lawyers, it has everything to do with him being innocent). 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

That's someone whining about his work after being elected not before.

What's with the anti vax crap angle? 

You do know that these are the milestones I'm talking about. If Biden was a CEO under my idea, he would be looking at the Whitehouse from the outside now. If he missed milestones it's game over, next one please. 

I shared that to breakdown the polling numbers. That was all. I didn't see an "anti-vax" angle in the video. He did raise the question of vaccination numbers and that not everyone would get vaccinated, that's a simple fact. I don't think he ever said anything about whether people should or shouldn't get vaxxed. Observing that not every person in America is going to get the jab does not make someone "anti vax". 

By the looks of it you didn't have any problems with the breakdown he provided of the polling numbers, though. 

 

Quote

Read the Mueller report then. It sounds like you have not. 

Why isn't he charged now? That's a bloody good question, not an answer. He should be. A lot of people feel he should be. He can afford good lawyers I suppose.

Or... and here's a thought you may not have considered, he's innocent! The claims that he was guilty are trumped up media stories and nothing more! 

 

Quote

Well you can consider a biography a lie. It's not hard to find out. Those examples you mentioned weren't in biographies.

Your missing way too much here. I don't seem to be able to get the point across but you will know of someone had always tried to help the community, you will know who was born with a silver spoon, never worked a day in their life and are out of touch. You will who is a self made person and understands the working life. Activities during life will illustrate a sense of fairness, if the person is bigotted and why. Where they brought up to be caring or harsh. All these things make up a person, how they will think and act. 

I don't think you understand the value of looking inside someone's head to understand them. 

I'm not going to vote for someone because I "like them". if they have policies I disagree with and values not consistent with my own, why should I vote for them, no matter how personable they are? 

I read an article a few months ago about several mines closing in the United States. On the campaign trail during the election, Biden kept saying that environmental concerns was a big issue on his agenda and that he would close down mines (specific mines listed by name, not just a vague statement that he was going to close some mines down). Then when it happened, several news companies took statements and interviews from the miners. It was amusing (yet sad at the same time) watching several miners interviewed say they voted for Biden, they knew his policies about the environment, they knew his campaign trail promised to shut down the very mine they worked at, but they "didn't think he'd actually do it", like it was a campaign promise they were expecting him to break! 

 

Quote

I don't know of the instance but I would disagree with it. I would pay good money to see Trump in a ring with the husband of one of the married women he hit on or grabbed or worse That's an absolute pathetic example of a human being. I really hate cheaters. Infidelity is an ultimate betrayal. You have no idea how much I hate those people. With all my hate in fact!!!!!! 

Oh, I worked that out already. Especially with the inclusion of the comment "or worse" in your sentence. I'm pretty sure Trump has "hit on" women, married or no. It's not illegal, though it may be immoral. I question whether he as ever actually "grabbed" someone - presumably you refer to his comments where he used the word "grab" about certain lady parts - this was a boast Trump made in a recorded conversation (what some observers describe as "locker room talk"), no one has accused him of doing that, married or unmarried. If he isn't even guilty of "grabbing" women, why assume he must be guilty of "or worse"!?!?! Whatever "or worse" means? Do you know what "or worse" means, or were you letting it hang in the hope that our imaginations would fill in the blanks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Please quote what is so unfair and biased.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/protests/13560050

Smear campaign my butt.

Mate, I have wayyy too much time on my hands at the moment. My job officially went back into the office today, but I don't get my second jab until next week so everyone is at work doing their thing and I"m still at home for another week with literally no work to do, lol). In any case I decided to go through and list issue by issue my problems with that video! All comments below relate to the time code to which they are addressed: 

 

0:01-2:05 - unrelated stories.

2:06 - aul Dowsley complaining that a mob isn't listening to reason (did Paul Dowsley go to the BLM march and try rationally and reasonably asking whole crowds of angry people to discuss things reasonably)? Maybe, maybe not. Just a thought as I was watching - not really relevant to Avi/Rukshan, though.

2:15 - First time Avi is brought up directly.

2:30 - Paul Barry smears Avi Yemini as being part of an organisation that "gave a platform to Mark Latham and Tommy Robinson". This is the same Mark Latham who used to be Leader of the Labor Party, right? If Rebel News gave a platform to Mark Latham and that is reason to smear them, then same to the Labor Party, I guess! 

2:40 - Paul Barry describes Rebel News as "riling against covid passports and mandates". Which has absolutely diddly-squat with a lockdown protest. Barry included this sentence in there as an attempt to smear them

2:44 - I'm sure Avi is thanking Barry for the free publicity to their shop, but it's also clear that Barry put this here as a smear, as if him wanting people to donate is reason to question his sincerity (not the first time ABC has done this, and if it was I might think it was coincidence and give the benefit of the doubt, but other ABC segments literally had a female journalist laughing and saying "he's filming himself and then putting the video right next to his donate button"). 

2:55 - Barry describes Yemini as "stoking anti-media sentiment", which again has nothing to do with his reporting at the event.

3:05 - Rukshan Fernando introduced for the first time

3:19 - Barry describes Fernando as "a self-described independent journalist". Umm, all independent journalists are self-described as such! 

3:25 - "He live streamed the protest for hours" - How dare he! I'm bringing this up because it is at odds with the rest of Barry's description of Rukshan, which tries to paint him as someone who is only showing one side of the story and hiding information we don't like.

3:48 - Barry says that Rukshan is "feeding" the right wing media in America too (as if being invited on to US news channels is somehow an indictment on Rukshan Fernando). 

4:05 - Barry describes the Fox reporter as "stoking anti-lockdown sentiment throughout the pandemic", as if this is somehow reason to dismiss her and/or Rukshan. 

4:15 - oh no's, Laura Ingraham asked a leading question, let's crucify her! 

4:25 - Barry begins to blur the lines between protesters with legitimate grievances and "zealots with a gladbag of causes"

4:30 - Barry introduces Dr Josh Roose... "a reseracher into far right movements". 

4:36 - Describes Rukshan as "no passive witness", before quoting Dr Roose. No source link for us to determine in what context Dr Roose wrote that about Fernando. What context did this researcher put these words in? Were they in an interview in which he was speaking conversationally, or a book he was selling, or a paper he was researching? Each of those has a different approach, and none of them addressed a 6-hour live stream. 

5:00 - concludes the segment with an unsupportable opinion - he provided no facts within the previous five minutes to justify it, all he said was "independent journalist he is not". He also included a note that Rukshan does not provide "context or balance", which just about describes ABC perfectly! 

 

So that basically covers the whole 5 minutes of the clip. At no point did Barry cite a single source (aside from Dr Roose, which I think is suspect already) and yet he spent the better part of 3 minutes ragging on them both. So much for context and balance!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Those rallies were legal. If anyone at those rallies actively broke the law, then they should be charged. Otherwise, I don't see how what they did was wrong, and certainly I don't see how these rallies happening makes people who live there a victim. I am not a victim just because protests happened in Sydney! The residents of Washington are not victims simply for living in a city where a protest happened, even one that turned ugly.

13 arrests. 5 weapons confiscated.

MAGA protestors are intimidating. 

Yes, if you were in the path of the rioters calling themself protestors in Sydney or Melbourne, you would be considered a victim. Some aholes kicked and punched even police horses. Bunch of pricks. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBpW7w8u9v3czwjZHAiLv

Quote

 I admit my research is not complete in this regard.

I'll consider it opinion then.

Quote

9a5e411bcef2895088754ac24a6568bc-23.jpg?

Such a violent uprising against authority! Don't let looks fool you, this woman is ready to cable tie any politician she finds! 

You do understand the thread is about a woman who was shot and killed there don't you?

And you say I minimise events!!

Quote

Maybe you can make that argument for the first people who turned up at the capitol and broke down the barriers. There simply wasn't enough police there to stop it (if there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation now - and like I've said countless times, someone is responsible for that lack of police presence, I know the Commissioner resigned because of it, but I don't know and I don't think we'll ever truly know whether it was an oversight on his part, or whether he was just a patsy taking the fall for someone else's decision).

You're not actually blaming anyone for not enough force to deal with the violence are you? Because that would be ridiculous. What about the actual violent people? They had a right to be violent and it's someone else's fault that there wasn't enough force to deal with that violence?

Really? 

Quote

In any case, the initial surge could be regarded as intimidation. However, there were thousands of people behind that initial group who turned up and simply saw open doors and people treating it like a sightseeing tour (see the old lady above, for example). They can be charged with trespassing. That's what most of them have been charged with. But they are not guilty of intimidation.

The courts haven't charged them with that, this is what YOU want. 

I'm OK with what the court and jury decide. I've already stated that I'm not a resident and will not try to think for them. I wasn't there. 

My argument is that if there really are nine out of ten people who feel insurrection is a fair call then they have more reason than media influence to come to that conclusion. 

Quote

 Thank Christ the Court of Appeals didn't agree with you. It is scary to me that you think a public declaration by the chief prosecutor is not legally binding! 

So nothing then?

Shouldn't a public declaration require a statutory declaration to accompany it? 

Quote

At the end of the day, the courts declared that you are wrong and I am right. Finding a USAToday columnist to call that a loophole (even a "brilliant loophole", as the author described it) doesn't make it a loophole. And describing her as an "expert" doesn't make her an expert.    

You're entitled to your opinion, and yes the courts have spoken do that's that. Strikes me as quite flimsy without paperwork but that's probably just me.

Quote

We're back at calling these people "victims". You still haven't provided any proof of this! 

They are to provide the proof. Again, I'm simply not convinced that the media are the blame. Considering the intimidating nature of MAGA supporters their gripe strikes me as legitimate. 

Quote

I shall vigorously disagree - you were smearing him as a nobody,

Dude, he is a nobody.

Quote

you just thought you could do it by saying he isn't even a regular employee, just a freelancer who only gets paid when he has something Ezra can trump up to make him money (thus not a real journalist). When that failed you cut and tried the next best option - well he's the only one in Australia, he's so unimportant that he's one employee in a country of 27 million people (thus not a real journalist). 

That didn't fail. It's a development in the last twelve months. Any place of employment would call him a junior. He is independent so he calls himself what he wants. There's no formal qualifications, no training and a hell of a lot in history for him to be ashamed of. 

You call him a real journalist, I never agreed that was a valid definition. I said your definition is a the most loose definition of a reporter one could stretch the description to. What I would consider poetic licence to reach the conclusion you desire. Calling him a journalist is spin IMHO.

Quote

Don't try to deny it, I know spin when I see it, whichever answer I gave you were going to rubbish it. As such, this is one more reason why I don't want to discuss Avi with you.

And he is a convicted wife basher who was taken to court by even his own brother. You completely dismissed morals and ethics for political favour. What you hate about media in fact. I don't think many would like to discuss such lapses in judgement. 

Quote

You'd become a figurehead for the intolerant left! Look at all these lefties, always claiming to be peaceful and wanting peace and wanting to live together in harmony. Obviously what they mean is they want peace with people who agree with everything they agree with! And if they don't get peace (that is, if there are people who they disagree with) they are willing to use violence to make it so, that's how deranged the left is! 

Yes, I'm spinning it already, but I guarantee you that's the spin that would be run with if you wanted to get violent with someone like that! You would become an example of the intolerant left to thousands of conservatives around Australia and millions around the world!

As I think about it, perhaps they would have a point - the media paints the left as tolerant and accepting, and the right as bigots and violent extremists, yet the threats of violence are coming from allegedly peaceful left-wingers like yourself! Right wing threats are not coming from regular conservatives, they are coming from alt-right bigots and extreme violent thugs that most conservatives do not agree with.  I wouldn't describe you as "alt left", but you are one of those who thinks political violence is ok because the person you are committing it against is someone you don't like! And if you are a reasonable left-winger, then is it reasonable to argue that violence is an acceptable part of left-wing political activism?

For shirt fronting?

Do you know what that means? It's not violence. I'm obviously using it as Abbott did, not in the Aussie rules interpretation. 

Quote

For the record, violence is not an acceptable part of any political action, left or right, in my opinion. 

Come on mate. You're not fooling anyone. Most of the right wing proponents you have put forth have violent records and engage in violent actions regularly. You entirely dismiss that for political orientation. 

Right wing politics is oriented toward violence. Closed conservative views are all about stepping on rights. 

Look at how you misinterpreted an Aussie term above! 

Quote

I actually thought it was rather annoying!

Then you are making it too personal. Sorry to hear that. I'll try to remain a serious and stuff.

Quote

Touche ;) 

See!

Quote

I don't know any right winger who supports Andrew Cuomo, before or after his dismissal. But I do see where they are coming from in the sense that politicians aren't supposed to be bastions of morality. They aren't elected because they represent the morals of everyday Americans, they are elected to do a job. Not liking a person doesn't mean they should be disqualified from public office. Even Andrew Cuomo, if the worst he did was tell a female reporter in 2016 to 'eat a whole sausage". But that wasn't the worst he did, and he's now gone. 

Nope, you are 100% wrong there. It was more than not liking a person, it was multiple accounts of inappropriate sexual behaviour. Multiple.

Anyone who goes for a job that puts them in the public eye has a responsibility to conduct themselves decently as a role model to all those who depend on, or look up to those people. 

Yes they indeed should be bastions of morality. They are expected to serve the public. As such it's a critical requirement. 

I'm actually surprised that you think it's not an issue. It's a requirement in entertainment, sports and journalists, why would that critical factor not apply to politics? 

It's not just so you can support right wing thugs I hope. 

Quote

 It sounds like he's making excuses for violence. First he makes an assumption that I disagree with - he argues that the violence is a result of inequity, which I think is a load of bull. But more than that, he was justifying the violence as a right and proper response, and that is not right no matter how you spin it! 

I would have said expected response. However he does implicate government inaction resulting in anarchy which is just an honest statement. 

Quote

 Because you are being misled. Veritas has been smeared so heavily, without evidence, time and again.

Do you know how many retractions Veritas has forced news organisations to make? I didn't, but Veritas keeps an ongoing tally on their website, the "wall of shame" - https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ - retractions from over 300 journalists and news reports who had to walk back the lies they have used to smear Veritas.

I'm not being misled, you are. 

The Veritas website! Totally convincing!!! Exhonertating themselves! What could possibly be suspicious about that!!!

ACORN. Cost people jobs. Sunk the company. Nice.

Edited videos. Illegal wiretaps. Verified, and charged. 

O'Keefe should be in jail.

https://time.com/4801721/james-okeefe-lawsuit-democracy-partners/

You have very bad sources of information and extremely poor examples of information. 

Why do all your right wing sources have such dark clouds hanging over them? Wife basher, cage fighter, liars. Gees mate! And you counter is that I'm misled? Veritas is the needle bro. The camel is broken. That's your credibility gone I'm afraid if you are supporting people who have been tried and found guilty of records 

Quote

As said, my point was that it is much easier to find dirt on right wingers using google than it is using Google to find negative stuff about left wingers. I didn't say you couldn't find it! I regret using hyperbole. 

My point is it was very easy.

Not hard. Not hidden.

Quote

As said, I don't know much about this situation, and honestly I don't care enough about Tucker to do enough research to find out. 

Well then you shouldn't be defending him in any way. You don't seem to know anything about him or if he actually deserved to be belittled next to Maddow, you're making large assumptions that the media is bad and poor Tucker is bearing the weight of their oppression.

Quote

I call it propaganda. I call it funny. I don't necessarily call it "news". 

That's ridiculous. 

You aren't serious about news then.

Their lives were in actual real danger. They told the public how much was spent on security for APEC, and then demonstrated that it wasn't justified when a costume was all it took to breach it. 

That's a milestone in reporting. There was a lot at risk to illustrate public spending by the government. That's the stuff that matters. Not if a wife basher who falls to the ground when police place a hand on his shoulder trying to fire people up against media and police inciting violence, he has you totally sucked in! Your values are way out of whack here. 

Quote
I chose to check Paul Barry specifically because you kept suggesting him as a foil to the left-wing crap that's spouted on ABC. You even went as far as saying Paul Barry has been "accused of being a right winger" because of his reporting. Whatever that reporting was, I don't know, but the reporting I've seen demonstrates he is as left-wing as they come. 

That was the only reason I singled him out, it had nothing to do with Sky News. I barely watch Sky News (more than I watch Tucker, I suppose, but not much more). 

I've mentioned at least four personalities every time. He is an easier target because Sky put him in the spotlight. You still have not commented on the others, but considering your hatchet job on Barry I can't see you admitting to any of their good work, you are after all ignoring all the good work Barry does because he didn't sink his employer. I consider that unreasonable. 

Quote

For the rest, I've no intention of discussing Avi with you, you have an irrational reaction to it and I find it impossible to debate rationally against irrational emotional arguments!

Yeah, well there's not much you can defend really. You can call it emotional, I call it relevant. I completely disagree that background is irrelevant. I consider that side stepping. 

Quote

However, ask yourself how Rukshan live streaming for six hours at the protests (ie, having zero chance to edit and tell a misleading narrative) is an example of (as Dr Josh Roose is quoted as saying at the 4:45 timecode in the video you linked): "He films the spectacular... building their narrative"! How is 6 hours of live stream "filming the spectacular", and how is condensing 6 hours of live stream into a 6 second clip for Media Watch a better version of "building their narrative"? At best (and I say at best, really it could be much worse, but I'm not going to waste my time going over it) - Paul Barry and Media Watch are accusing Rukshan Fernando of what they themselves are guilty - #ConfessionThroughProjection

He was streaming footage for hour each day leading up to the event and even agreed with Ingram that Australia was like Tiananmen square!!!! 

Yes, that's building a narrative!! 

And it's disgraceful BS reporting, Much worse than any of your mainstream examples!

Quote
I don't know. I broke down the numbers of the article you linked before, and it seems that if everyone voted exactly as their parents did, then you account for the 20% swing to progressive politics that the article you linked identified, and either conservatives will never get in power again, or progressives would never have been in power in the last 50 years. 

Does it say people vote like their parents do?

Does it provide statistics to back that up? 

That was the issue remember.

Quote
The trap that if we get rid of democracy our freedoms are guaranteed to be secure! They aren't. 

Who wants to get rid of democracy? 

That's not anything like what I have proposed. Fact is, in Biden's case, he would be about to be booted under the system I proposed to be replaced by another who shows skills capable of improving the nation. 

Quote

The sheer misinformation in this document is ridiculous!

And yet your legal eagle had repeated many of them.

Quote

Below are two videos, both from lawyers who break down the Mueller Report with a lot less spin than this article. In order to avoid claims of bias, I have chosen a very left-wing lawyer (Legal Eagle, he hates Donald Trump and everything he puts out about Donald Trump is negative). It is not flattering. The other is from a right-wing lawyer (and my personal favourite lawyer on YouTubej - despite being right wing, I think he does an excellent job putting his bias aside). There was no collusion, that is a fact!

Moreover, Legal Eagle (who as I said, hates Trump) agrees at the timecode 2:38 that this only applies to Trump during his term in office, and when he is no longer in office he can be charged if he is guilty of crimes worthy of being charged over! And yet here we are.... nearly a year removed from Trump's exit from the White House, and we are no closer to a court case. The media was beating up the story big time, you bought into it and now you're struggling to find reasons why the prosecutors don't charge Trump now he's out of office (hint: it's not because of his lawyers, it has everything to do with him being innocent). 

 

 

 

So after all that, we are back to square one.

Trump could not be charged ad a sitting president and your claiming no further action means he is innocent. 

That's a huge departure from.logic there.

You don't seem to be admitting that one of your sources there is indeed saying he broke the law. 

He's a slimy character with good lawyers. Gulliani and Powell were both thrown under the bus over his election lies. He should be charged for the cost of verification against his lies, that he continues to lie about, regarding the stolen election. Can you tell me why he hadn't been held responsible for that? He ripped of America at the Baja Condos debacle too, did he ever face that music? Why do the rich often seen to evade justice? 

Quote

I shared that to breakdown the polling numbers. That was all. I didn't see an "anti-vax" angle in the video. He did raise the question of vaccination numbers and that not everyone would get vaccinated, that's a simple fact. I don't think he ever said anything about whether people should or shouldn't get vaxxed. Observing that not every person in America is going to get the jab does not make someone "anti vax". 

By the looks of it you didn't have any problems with the breakdown he provided of the polling numbers, though. 

As I said earlier, he is talking about Biden in office. Hillary didn't make office. They are different situations 

And have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the media could not get Hillary in regardless of their strongest efforts, which I feel refutes the claim that media influences people to the great degree you insinuate. Nice deflection but no cigar. 

Quote

Or... and here's a thought you may not have considered, he's innocent! The claims that he was guilty are trumped up media stories and nothing more! 

Your legal eagle says otherwise. 

No he is not innocent. You would have to believe in stolen elections to go that far. 

Quote

I'm not going to vote for someone because I "like them". if they have policies I disagree with and values not consistent with my own, why should I vote for them, no matter how personable they are? 

Far out it's hard to get this point across.

Liking them isn't required. Personable isn't required. That's not the point. It's not about warm fuzzies. It's about how a person's head works. That's what will influence decisions, tell you if they really are committed to a promise and of they are the sort of person to see things through or one that passes the buck. 

The mechanics of their thinking. Why they would make a decision and what influences would drive that. 

That all tells you what sort of a leader they will become. 

Quote

I read an article a few months ago about several mines closing in the United States. On the campaign trail during the election, Biden kept saying that environmental concerns was a big issue on his agenda and that he would close down mines (specific mines listed by name, not just a vague statement that he was going to close some mines down). Then when it happened, several news companies took statements and interviews from the miners. It was amusing (yet sad at the same time) watching several miners interviewed say they voted for Biden, they knew his policies about the environment, they knew his campaign trail promised to shut down the very mine they worked at, but they "didn't think he'd actually do it", like it was a campaign promise they were expecting him to break! 

And you say my idea is ridiculous and that voting works. ..........

There's voting in action!!! 

I wouldn't call that the best possible method myself. 

Quote

Oh, I worked that out already.

I stand behind that. 

That's an ultimate breach of trust and illustrates a very distasteful character. Not anyone I'd like to be around and I would not socialise with anyone of such low morals and ethics. Certainly not the leader of a country. That's as disrespectful to the people you are supposed to be leading as it can get. 

Quote

Especially with the inclusion of the comment "or worse" in your sentence. I'm pretty sure Trump has "hit on" women, married or no. It's not illegal, though it may be immoral. I question whether he as ever actually "grabbed" someone - presumably you refer to his comments where he used the word "grab" about certain lady parts - this was a boast Trump made in a recorded conversation (what some observers describe as "locker room talk"), no one has accused him of doing that, married or unmarried. If he isn't even guilty of "grabbing" women, why assume he must be guilty of "or worse"!?!?! Whatever "or worse" means? Do you know what "or worse" means, or were you letting it hang in the hope that our imaginations would fill in the blanks? 

Worse is where he went with Stormy Daniels. If he was talking to me about women in a pub like the above do called locker room talk (a phrase that irks me to be honest), then you would see the violence you keep anticipating. But the point is probably moot with you, because it seems that you don't care how morally corrupt a person is, as long as they say what you approve of, and support right wing values. I don't get that. That part of you has definitely changed. You used to care about others more than that. It's all important just to be a half decent human being let alone the leader of a country. 

Look up the Baja Condos, look up Harry Dunn. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Mate, I have wayyy too much time on my hands at the moment. My job officially went back into the office today, but I don't get my second jab until next week so everyone is at work doing their thing and I"m still at home for another week with literally no work to do, lol). In any case I decided to go through and list issue by issue my problems with that video! All comments below relate to the time code to which they are addressed: 

Nice to have time to yourself. 

I never had to leave my office, but I'm totally jealous of your free time. 

Quote

0:01-2:05 - unrelated stories.

That's not a criticism I hope. It's not about either one, or their reporting. It's about what independent YouTube amateurs are doing when they claim to be reporting. If they were actually just reporting there wouldn't be a show to film.

Quote

2:06 - aul Dowsley complaining that a mob isn't listening to reason (did Paul Dowsley go to the BLM march and try rationally and reasonably asking whole crowds of angry people to discuss things reasonably)? Maybe, maybe not. Just a thought as I was watching - not really relevant to Avi/Rukshan, though.

I'm not sure what it's relevant to. The independents fired up an angry crowd who assulted Mr Dowsley. Seems at odds with your non violent stance though. 

It's completely relevant to the headline.

Quote

2:15 - First time Avi is brought up directly.

2:30 - Paul Barry smears Avi Yemini as being part of an organisation that "gave a platform to Mark Latham and Tommy Robinson". This is the same Mark Latham who used to be Leader of the Labor Party, right? If Rebel News gave a platform to Mark Latham and that is reason to smear them, then same to the Labor Party, I guess! 

It's the same Mark Latham alright.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1564581600/sean-kelly/mark-latham-outsider#mtr

The one who led the labor party and faced court twice over racial slurs. He isn't leader of the Labor party at the time of the show airing I believe. So you would be smearing them over someone who was in the party Iike twenty years ago and before those court cases. Not sure how that would wash out.

Quote

2:40 - Paul Barry describes Rebel News as "riling against covid passports and mandates". Which has absolutely diddly-squat with a lockdown protest. Barry included this sentence in there as an attempt to smear them

Covid mandates do indeed include lockdowns. 

Quote

2:44 - I'm sure Avi is thanking Barry for the free publicity to their shop,

Me too. Next time people go crazy over toilet paper I know where to find an alternative :lol:

JK. Calm down....

Quote

but it's also clear that Barry put this here as a smear, as if him wanting people to donate is reason to question his sincerity (not the first time ABC has done this, and if it was I might think it was coincidence and give the benefit of the doubt, but other ABC segments literally had a female journalist laughing and saying "he's filming himself and then putting the video right next to his donate button"). 

Is that untrue information? 

Pretty sure people can decide on that. As you point out, the rioters are his biggest fans. If any were watching Avi might be thanking him as suggested. 

Well, I laughed when I saw the clip where he claimed to be thrown to the ground. I dead set thought it was a joke at first. I was honestly surprised when I googled it.

Quote

2:55 - Barry describes Yemini as "stoking anti-media sentiment", which again has nothing to do with his reporting at the event.

It's true though. Are you denying that is the case here?

Did you read the title of the article?

Mainstream reporters abused by Melbourne protesters while independent journalists are celebrated.

Is that accurate to the headline or not? 

Quote

3:05 - Rukshan Fernando introduced for the first time

3:19 - Barry describes Fernando as "a self-described independent journalist". Umm, all independent journalists are self-described as such! 

He's repeating his own words isn't he? He is better known for wedding photography but turned on the government when quarantine stopped weddings and basically put him out of business for a while. It would seem that he has a personal score to settle.

One thing I'll give him, he is qualified as a cameraman. That's a real world skill applicable to his chosen direction. That's a step up on the other guys.

Quote

3:25 - "He live streamed the protest for hours" - How dare he! I'm bringing this up because it is at odds with the rest of Barry's description of Rukshan, which tries to paint him as someone who is only showing one side of the story and hiding information we don't like.

Let's see. I think that is the case. 

Quote

3:48 - Barry says that Rukshan is "feeding" the right wing media in America too (as if being invited on to US news channels is somehow an indictment on Rukshan Fernando). 

If it isn't, why is he chosen for far right wing shows to dump on Australia? 

Quote

4:05 - Barry describes the Fox reporter as "stoking anti-lockdown sentiment throughout the pandemic", as if this is somehow reason to dismiss her and/or Rukshan. 

4:15 - oh no's, Laura Ingraham asked a leading question, let's crucify her! 

Leading question? Yes crucify her!!! 

She fricken compared Australia to Tiananmen square!!! FFS!! That's slandering an entire country!!! And you condone this twerp feeding that hate? He agreed that Australia is becoming like China! That's slander too! 

I'm ashamed to call him a fellow countryman after that display! The cheek!! How on earth can you support or minimise that? Gum on the boot of the world anyone?

I'm pleased to say Saru shut down a recent anti Australia thread by a right wing poster claiming it's not a free country anymore. Seems to be a thing at the moment. 

Quote

4:25 - Barry begins to blur the lines between protesters with legitimate grievances and "zealots with a gladbag of causes"

The lines were always blurred, I don't know a single source that has the entire story. 

Lots of people at that riot were not tradesmen. One was seen discarding hi Vis in a bin after the event. Facebook posts reportedly suggested those who show up dress like tradesmen. There were a lot of people taking advantage of the situation for their own agenda. 

The riot was mainly fuelled by one or two major construction companies that have strong anti vax, anti mask, covid deniers that stand alone in a much larger industry. This farce had offered the false view that the construction industry is in favour of this. I can tell you it's not. I deal with some pretty well known names in the industry and I don't know a one who wasn't disgusted at the event. Independents are misrepresenting the situation. I'm not overly pleased at that. Yet real reporters get urine tipped over them whilst people cheer Avi on. That's wrong in so many ways.

Some might have chuckled at the irony of the CFMEU being under pressure as opposed to applying it, but that's about the limit of it. 

Quote

4:30 - Barry introduces Dr Josh Roose... "a reseracher into far right movements". 

That's accurate.

https://icct.nl/people/dr-josh-roose/

 

Quote

4:36 - Describes Rukshan as "no passive witness", before quoting Dr Roose. No source link for us to determine in what context Dr Roose wrote that about Fernando.

A source link on a TV show?

Wut?

Quote

What context did this researcher put these words in? Were they in an interview in which he was speaking conversationally, or a book he was selling, or a paper he was researching? Each of those has a different approach, and none of them addressed a 6-hour live stream. 

Obviously quoting The Age article where several credentialed people commented on his style of reporting. It was the first thing I stumbled on when his name came up.

“[His videos have] grown him exponentially in the last week. It’s an interesting tactic and style. He’ll attend these protests, film the violence, yet deny responsibility,” Roose says.

“His filming of the protest is actually part of the problem.”

“He films the spectacular ... and seeks to bring in sympathy for protesters in the middle of a pandemic that not only are a health risk but have a record of being violent towards the police … in that sense he’s building their narrative.”

There you go. All cleared up.

Quote

5:00 - concludes the segment with an unsupportable opinion - he provided no facts within the previous five minutes to justify it, all he said was "independent journalist he is not".

I disagree. I feel it clearly illustrates that there is a right wing agenda being driven as opposed to reporting. Fernando's claim to be neutral isn't reflected by the events he films. 

Quote

He also included a note that Rukshan does not provide "context or balance", which just about describes ABC perfectly! 

Can you show me where he seperated any non tradesmen from tradesmen? What's interviews had he had with the CFMEU and ETU? 

What side had he shown other than a minority? Where is the reporting from people opposed to the riot or the families in cars pushed and rocked by the so called protestors? Did he ask that jerk why he kicked a dog? 

Or did he champion the idiots who assulted Mr Dowsley who is actually a legitimate reporter? 

Quote

So that basically covers the whole 5 minutes of the clip. At no point did Barry cite a single source (aside from Dr Roose, which I think is suspect already) and yet he spent the better part of 3 minutes ragging on them both. So much for context and balance!   

What sources do you cite for independents when your using their own footage? 

Still got me on the link. Never clicked a link on TV before. You got me wondering there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

13 arrests. 5 weapons confiscated.

MAGA protestors are intimidating. 

Yes, if you were in the path of the rioters calling themself protestors in Sydney or Melbourne, you would be considered a victim. Some aholes kicked and punched even police horses. Bunch of pricks. 

When we began this discussion you said anyone living in the city was a victim. Now you are saying that it is only people who were actually affected directly by the protest. That's a different proposition, and I agree that those who were directly in the path of the protest MIGHT be victims IF they had property damaged or some such. 

Such a person, if they were called for jury duty, would be disqualified from service, and thus I don't think we have anything to argue with on this point. That was the reason we began this discussion, you said that victims living in the city could also be jury members, and I say they cannot and would not be jury members on account of being biased. 

I wouldn't have argued with you if you had made it clear that you were referring to people who were actually affected by the protest and not just residents living in the city. 

 

Quote

You do understand the thread is about a woman who was shot and killed there don't you?

And you say I minimise events!!

I know what this thread is about. However, the fact that one person lost their life as a result of this protest does not mean that the vast majority of those who attended were not peaceful. The context I used this image in was discussing the idea of whether people are guilty of "intimidation", which is a crime you have suggested all 50,000 people in the crowd should all be charged with, though later in this post you do pull back from this a little bit. 

 

Quote

You're not actually blaming anyone for not enough force to deal with the violence are you? Because that would be ridiculous. What about the actual violent people? They had a right to be violent and it's someone else's fault that there wasn't enough force to deal with that violence?

Really?

"Show of Force" is a legitimate police tactic. One that the police failed to use on January 6. Had they done so, there would not have been a riot. That's a bold claim, but I will make that - if there was a reasonable police presence at the capitol, there would not have been a riot! That makes whoever was responsible for NOT providing a police presence guilty!

I'm pretty sure I shared this video before, but I'll share it again.

 

I highly recommend watching this whole video and the other video (part 1 of the breakdown). It will give you a broader understanding of the situation. But if you don't have time, then the time code in this video from 2:30-7:33 really covers what I'm getting at. To be honest, if you are strapped for time for even that much, you can get away with watching from about the 5:30-7:33 mark instead. 

If you watched at least the 2:30-7:33 time code, you'll notice that Nate shares news articles published in the days leading up to January 6, which basically outline every single thing the rioters planned on doing. And yet, when the day came, there wasn't a police presence of any note to stop any of the things that the media reported on in the days before. Someone bears responsibility for that. Fact is, if the police did their job (or more correctly, whoever was responsible for security actually pulled their finger out and prepared the right police presence) there would not have been any breach of the capitol building, and Ashlii Babbitt would still likely be alive today.

To use an analogy, if the police received credible evidence that someone was going to assassinate the President, and if the president is subsequently assassinated and the police did virtually nothing to protect the president, then regardless of the blame we assign to the killer, you'd have to agree that the police bear some responsibility for not instituting relevant protective measures. Same thing with the January 6 protest - whatever guilt you assign to any individual protester, guilt must also extend to the people who were responsible for security around the capitol. 

 

Quote

I'm OK with what the court and jury decide. I've already stated that I'm not a resident and will not try to think for them. I wasn't there. 

The reason why I continued this discussion with you is that you literally said they should be charged with intimidation (even the old lady, I'm sure I shared that picture earlier in the thread, specifically to ask whether she was guilty of intimidation, in your opinion, and you said that she was). If you have walked back from that extreme stance then fair enough, we don't have anything more to discuss! 

 

Quote

So nothing then?

Shouldn't a public declaration require a statutory declaration to accompany it? 

You're entitled to your opinion, and yes the courts have spoken do that's that. Strikes me as quite flimsy without paperwork but that's probably just me.

The judge decided that it is just you! If a public prosecutor makes a public statement, it's legally binding! 

And that is how it should be, in my opinion. Otherwise the public prosecutors can say anything they like in press conferences and never be held to any standard of truthfulness! The public would lose trust in the office of public prosecutions, as they would essentially be given the leeway to legally lie in public (as long as what they say is not in writing, they can say whatever they want). 

 

Quote

For shirt fronting?

Do you know what that means? It's not violence. I'm obviously using it as Abbott did, not in the Aussie rules interpretation. 

I honestly had never heard the phrase before. I assumed it was a euphemism for getting in someone's face (literally shirts close enough to touch each other, thus "shirt fronting"). Guess I was wrong :w00t: 

Though the actual definition as found in Google is an AFL term, and it literally means "to charge your opponent's chest with the intention of knocking them down". That would be a form of violence and had I Googled the definition it would have confirmed my assumption about its meaning. 

You say you are using this in the context that Tony Abbott used, which is only useful if I know the context that Tony Abbott used it. Which I quickly Googled just now. In context between politicians holding interviews about people on the other side of the world, it would seem obvious that "shirt fronting" is hyperbole. If I was at the pub and a guy had 26 beers, then said "if I see so-and-so in real life, I swear I'm gonna shirt front the guy", I'd take that to be an actual threat of violence (or at least, boasting about threats of violence). 

Unless you are a public figure talking to the news camera about another public figure, it seems that you would fit closer to the guy at the pub than the politician on telly. Hence the context certainly implies violence.

So we're clear, what did you mean by "shirt fronting", if you ever saw him? 

 

Quote

Come on mate. You're not fooling anyone. Most of the right wing proponents you have put forth have violent records and engage in violent actions regularly. You entirely dismiss that for political orientation. 

Right wing politics is oriented toward violence. Closed conservative views are all about stepping on rights. 

Look at how you misinterpreted an Aussie term above! 

You are wrong, mate. 

 

Quote

Nope, you are 100% wrong there. It was more than not liking a person, it was multiple accounts of inappropriate sexual behaviour. Multiple.

Anyone who goes for a job that puts them in the public eye has a responsibility to conduct themselves decently as a role model to all those who depend on, or look up to those people. 

Yes they indeed should be bastions of morality. They are expected to serve the public. As such it's a critical requirement. 

I'm actually surprised that you think it's not an issue. It's a requirement in entertainment, sports and journalists, why would that critical factor not apply to politics? 

It's not just so you can support right wing thugs I hope. 

What is your standard? Should Andrew Cuomo have been stood down in 2016 for sexually suggestive interplay between two grown adults ("eat a whole sausage")? LIke I said, I think the video was quite disturbing, especially as Cuomo's teenage daughter was apparently present at the time. But was it actually illegal and therefore warranted losing his job? 

It's a moot issue, as Cuomo has done far more than that. It's just a question - where is the standard you are setting, and would any politicians meet the standard you are asking for? 

 

Quote

I'm not being misled, you are. 

The Veritas website! Totally convincing!!! Exhonertating themselves! What could possibly be suspicious about that!!!

ACORN. Cost people jobs. Sunk the company. Nice.

Edited videos. Illegal wiretaps. Verified, and charged. 

O'Keefe should be in jail.

https://time.com/4801721/james-okeefe-lawsuit-democracy-partners/

You have very bad sources of information and extremely poor examples of information. 

Why do all your right wing sources have such dark clouds hanging over them? Wife basher, cage fighter, liars. Gees mate! And you counter is that I'm misled? Veritas is the needle bro. The camel is broken. That's your credibility gone I'm afraid if you are supporting people who have been tried and found guilty of records 

You realise my point in bringing up Project Veritas was to point out that I'm curious to see how the court case goes between them and the New York TImes, right? That was literally the entirety of it. I shared two stories about Maddow and Carlson and then said (paraphrasing here) "You know what, those court cases are pretty milk toast boring, the NYT/Veritas defamation suit is actually far more interesting". And it is! Veritas has taken NYT to court for defamation. NYT countered the suit with a virtually identical argument to Maddow and Carlson - this is just an opinion by the author. However, in that deposition, NYT also admitted that Maggie Astor (the journalist who wrote the allegedly defamatory statements) is not employed as an opinion columnist but in fact she is hired to report factual news reports. 

Whether you like Project Veritas or not, that makes it an objectively more interesting court case, does it not? Also the fact that Project Veritas has never lost a court case adds to the interest, does it not? 

All these things are true without ever even suggesting whether Project Veritas itself is a worthwhile source. If I ever quote Project Veritas to support my views, then we'll reconvene  this discussion. Otherwise, I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about the validity of Veritas as a source. 

 

Quote

My point is it was very easy.

Not hard. Not hidden.

And my point is... never mind, I regret using the example now! 

 

Quote

Well then you shouldn't be defending him in any way. You don't seem to know anything about him or if he actually deserved to be belittled next to Maddow, you're making large assumptions that the media is bad and poor Tucker is bearing the weight of their oppression.

But I have kept abreast of the court cases about this, enough to know that Maddow and Carlson were basically taken to court for the same thing. I have listened to multiple lawyers break down both cases. You keep trying to minimise that by justifying why people are spinning harder for one personality than another. It doesn't matter, in my opinion. That is all I'm getting at!

 

Quote

That's ridiculous. 

You aren't serious about news then.

Their lives were in actual real danger. They told the public how much was spent on security for APEC, and then demonstrated that it wasn't justified when a costume was all it took to breach it. 

That's a milestone in reporting. There was a lot at risk to illustrate public spending by the government. That's the stuff that matters. Not if a wife basher who falls to the ground when police place a hand on his shoulder trying to fire people up against media and police inciting violence, he has you totally sucked in! Your values are way out of whack here. 

I'm still not seeing how this changes the fact that the ABC is hopelessly biased!

 

 

Quote

I've mentioned at least four personalities every time. He is an easier target because Sky put him in the spotlight. You still have not commented on the others, but considering your hatchet job on Barry I can't see you admitting to any of their good work, you are after all ignoring all the good work Barry does because he didn't sink his employer. I consider that unreasonable. 

Your initial posts urged me to check out Media Watch specifically. You even tried to hook me to listen to him by claiming he's been accused of being a "right winger" because of his reporting. 

His refusal to hold his employer to account is only part of the reason why I think he is an unbalanced source. The other half I laid out in my other post, literally everything he said was a smear campaign with zero facts. That is not journalism! 

 

Quote

Does it say people vote like their parents do?

Does it provide statistics to back that up? 

That was the issue remember.

I don't know, the point is you don't know either. The article only looked at young people's attitudes compared to their parents. It didn't gauge whether these people also voted according to their values. And it didn't look into whether people's political views change over time (ie, will the 17 year olds surveyed today hold the same political opinions 30 years from now when they are 47 years old). It would also require looking deeper into the demographic breakdown of who took the poll - are certain demographics over or under-represented? 

Voting is far more nuanced than that, because if the swing numbers are accurate as per your statistics, then either Conservatives HAD an unassailable margin of victory decades ago, or Progressives currently HAVE an unassailable margin of victory today. Neither is true, so the system must be more nuanced than your sole article suggests.

 

Quote

Who wants to get rid of democracy? 

That's not anything like what I have proposed. Fact is, in Biden's case, he would be about to be booted under the system I proposed to be replaced by another who shows skills capable of improving the nation. 

Umm... you did! 

Democracy, literally, rule by the people...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

You advocated for a change in government from a PM who we elect regularly through election cycles, to a CEO-based system based on hard KPI's and performance-based metrics. That is not a democracy, thus you are advocating to remove democracy from our country. 

 

Quote

And yet your legal eagle had repeated many of them.

So after all that, we are back to square one.

Trump could not be charged ad a sitting president and your claiming no further action means he is innocent. 

That's a huge departure from.logic there.

You don't seem to be admitting that one of your sources there is indeed saying he broke the law. 

He's a slimy character with good lawyers. Gulliani and Powell were both thrown under the bus over his election lies. He should be charged for the cost of verification against his lies, that he continues to lie about, regarding the stolen election. Can you tell me why he hadn't been held responsible for that? He ripped of America at the Baja Condos debacle too, did he ever face that music? Why do the rich often seen to evade justice? 

Guiliani and Powell went rogue, they weren't acting on Trump's orders. I watch a lawyer almost every week. He's super right wing (Robert Barnes, the most right wing lawyer I watch, actually) and even in November when Guiliani was going on about Dominion voting software, Barnes was shaking his head saying "that'll bite Guiliani in the butt down the track". If anything, Guiliani and Powell did a disservice to Trump because now when we look at the election fraud the prevailing narrative will be of those two lying about Dominion software, whereas those two actually had very little to do with Trump's challenge of the election outcome! 

Neverthelss, here we are in October 2021, and Trump still isn't charged with anything! I maintain it's because he was innocent, didn't do anything wrong, and those who are claiming he did do something wrong are doing it based off false and flawed information. I said it when the Mueller Report came out - everyone who said that this was proof Trump was guilty, I simply said "then when he is no longer president he'll be charged and we can discuss it then". 

To my complete lack of surprise, I'm still waiting for him to be charged! And I don't think he ever will be charged. Because he is innocent! 

 

Quote

As I said earlier, he is talking about Biden in office. Hillary didn't make office. They are different situations 

And have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the media could not get Hillary in regardless of their strongest efforts, which I feel refutes the claim that media influences people to the great degree you insinuate. Nice deflection but no cigar. 

I don't disagree. My point was, it's hard to see Hilary's numbers worse than Joe's currently are! 

That was the entire reason I posted. As Hilary has never been president, I naturally don't have any statistics to compare her time as President to see what her polling numbers might be.

 

Quote

Your legal eagle says otherwise. 

No he is not innocent. You would have to believe in stolen elections to go that far. 

And yet he stopped short of accusing Trump of anything. Like I said, Legal Eagle is one of the most anit-Trump lawyers out there, and even he didn't try and suggest some of the things that were alleged in the article you cited. In fact his comments, if you watch it carefully, never actually outright concludes anything about Trump's alleged crimes, except to say that he can be charged when he is no longer a sitting president. 

Regardless, here we are in October 2021, and despite a Mueller Report which allegedly proves all the claims you say he is guilty of, we are still here, waiting for criminal charges to be brought. 

 

Quote

Far out it's hard to get this point across.

Liking them isn't required. Personable isn't required. That's not the point. It's not about warm fuzzies. It's about how a person's head works. That's what will influence decisions, tell you if they really are committed to a promise and of they are the sort of person to see things through or one that passes the buck. 

The mechanics of their thinking. Why they would make a decision and what influences would drive that. 

That all tells you what sort of a leader they will become. 

You keep voting for people you think "have the best head on their shoulders", I'll keep voting for the people I think will do the best job! I'm not going to vote for someone with policies I don't agree with just because they tick a bunch of other boxes. 

 

Quote

And you say my idea is ridiculous and that voting works. ..........

There's voting in action!!! 

I wouldn't call that the best possible method myself. 

Yet democracy is still the best option we have. At the least, it is the most successful political system in history. 

 

Quote

I stand behind that. 

That's an ultimate breach of trust and illustrates a very distasteful character. Not anyone I'd like to be around and I would not socialise with anyone of such low morals and ethics. Certainly not the leader of a country. That's as disrespectful to the people you are supposed to be leading as it can get. 

Worse is where he went with Stormy Daniels. If he was talking to me about women in a pub like the above do called locker room talk (a phrase that irks me to be honest), then you would see the violence you keep anticipating. But the point is probably moot with you, because it seems that you don't care how morally corrupt a person is, as long as they say what you approve of, and support right wing values. I don't get that. That part of you has definitely changed. You used to care about others more than that. It's all important just to be a half decent human being let alone the leader of a country. 

Look up the Baja Condos, look up Harry Dunn. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he have consenting sex with Stormy Daniels? Is an affair your definition of "or worse" in this situation? Really? Should we disqualify politicians who have an affair from public service from now on? 

 

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nice to have time to yourself. 

I never had to leave my office, but I'm totally jealous of your free time. 

That's not a criticism I hope. It's not about either one, or their reporting. It's about what independent YouTube amateurs are doing when they claim to be reporting. If they were actually just reporting there wouldn't be a show to film.

I'm not sure what it's relevant to. The independents fired up an angry crowd who assulted Mr Dowsley. Seems at odds with your non violent stance though. 

It's completely relevant to the headline.

It's the same Mark Latham alright.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1564581600/sean-kelly/mark-latham-outsider#mtr

The one who led the labor party and faced court twice over racial slurs. He isn't leader of the Labor party at the time of the show airing I believe. So you would be smearing them over someone who was in the party Iike twenty years ago and before those court cases. Not sure how that would wash out.

Covid mandates do indeed include lockdowns. 

Me too. Next time people go crazy over toilet paper I know where to find an alternative :lol:

JK. Calm down....

Is that untrue information? 

Pretty sure people can decide on that. As you point out, the rioters are his biggest fans. If any were watching Avi might be thanking him as suggested. 

Well, I laughed when I saw the clip where he claimed to be thrown to the ground. I dead set thought it was a joke at first. I was honestly surprised when I googled it.

It's true though. Are you denying that is the case here?

Did you read the title of the article?

Mainstream reporters abused by Melbourne protesters while independent journalists are celebrated.

Is that accurate to the headline or not? 

He's repeating his own words isn't he? He is better known for wedding photography but turned on the government when quarantine stopped weddings and basically put him out of business for a while. It would seem that he has a personal score to settle.

One thing I'll give him, he is qualified as a cameraman. That's a real world skill applicable to his chosen direction. That's a step up on the other guys.

Let's see. I think that is the case. 

If it isn't, why is he chosen for far right wing shows to dump on Australia? 

Leading question? Yes crucify her!!! 

She fricken compared Australia to Tiananmen square!!! FFS!! That's slandering an entire country!!! And you condone this twerp feeding that hate? He agreed that Australia is becoming like China! That's slander too! 

I'm ashamed to call him a fellow countryman after that display! The cheek!! How on earth can you support or minimise that? Gum on the boot of the world anyone?

I'm pleased to say Saru shut down a recent anti Australia thread by a right wing poster claiming it's not a free country anymore. Seems to be a thing at the moment. 

The lines were always blurred, I don't know a single source that has the entire story. 

Lots of people at that riot were not tradesmen. One was seen discarding hi Vis in a bin after the event. Facebook posts reportedly suggested those who show up dress like tradesmen. There were a lot of people taking advantage of the situation for their own agenda. 

The riot was mainly fuelled by one or two major construction companies that have strong anti vax, anti mask, covid deniers that stand alone in a much larger industry. This farce had offered the false view that the construction industry is in favour of this. I can tell you it's not. I deal with some pretty well known names in the industry and I don't know a one who wasn't disgusted at the event. Independents are misrepresenting the situation. I'm not overly pleased at that. Yet real reporters get urine tipped over them whilst people cheer Avi on. That's wrong in so many ways.

Some might have chuckled at the irony of the CFMEU being under pressure as opposed to applying it, but that's about the limit of it. 

That's accurate.

https://icct.nl/people/dr-josh-roose/

 

A source link on a TV show?

Wut?

Obviously quoting The Age article where several credentialed people commented on his style of reporting. It was the first thing I stumbled on when his name came up.

“[His videos have] grown him exponentially in the last week. It’s an interesting tactic and style. He’ll attend these protests, film the violence, yet deny responsibility,” Roose says.

“His filming of the protest is actually part of the problem.”

“He films the spectacular ... and seeks to bring in sympathy for protesters in the middle of a pandemic that not only are a health risk but have a record of being violent towards the police … in that sense he’s building their narrative.”

There you go. All cleared up.

I disagree. I feel it clearly illustrates that there is a right wing agenda being driven as opposed to reporting. Fernando's claim to be neutral isn't reflected by the events he films. 

Can you show me where he seperated any non tradesmen from tradesmen? What's interviews had he had with the CFMEU and ETU? 

What side had he shown other than a minority? Where is the reporting from people opposed to the riot or the families in cars pushed and rocked by the so called protestors? Did he ask that jerk why he kicked a dog? 

Or did he champion the idiots who assulted Mr Dowsley who is actually a legitimate reporter? 

What sources do you cite for independents when your using their own footage? 

Still got me on the link. Never clicked a link on TV before. You got me wondering there. 

And this is the reason why I didn't want to waste my time breaking down the video. I already knew you were hopelessly biased against Avi, so I was already pushing uphill. You really didn't counter any of the points I made. Everything that was said in that segment about Avi and Rukshan was a beat up. As I read through the article in The Age (thanks for that, I honestly didn't care enough to search it myself) it became even clearer that Barry cherry picked what he wanted to make the points he wanted to make. For example, he could have quoted either of these two academics from that article: 

 

Quote

“I never believe in general the simple explanation, saying that the far right blows some whistle then you have hundreds of people in the streets. The roots of this, the discontent causing this is real … people are not being paid, the vaccine mandate. You have an opportunity for many different movements and groups to try to steer this.”

~ Dr Francesca Bailo (lecturer in digital and social Media, University of Technology Sydney). 

Or....

“He’s highly skilled – he’s very good at what he does. Is there much difference between him than Sky After Dark? Yes, he’s better at that than they are. Is there much difference in the ideology? I don’t think so. He has a much more intimate relationship with the movement on the streets.”

~ Andrew Jakubowics (Professor of Sociology at University of Technology Sydney)

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/who-is-the-real-rukshan-20210924-p58umr.html


Both quotes from The Age. But Barry chose the one quote that suited his narrative and painted Rukshan in the worst possible light. Literally everything he said was intended to paint both of them in as bad a light as possible, it was terribly poor journalism.

But whatever the case, the article from The Age didn't back up any of the smears that Barry made towards Rukshan or Avi. It was a quintessential "hatchet job". 

 

Quote

What sources do you cite for independents when your using their own footage? 

If an independent YouTuber cites an article, I fully expect them to have "sources in description". That way, if they quote an article I can go to the article itself and see what it said. Most independent YouTubers I follow do that. The ones that don't clearly verbalise the source of their quote within the video itself. I have never had to "guess" at the source of an independent YouTuber I trust, they provide all the sources they cited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.