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 -

Judge went 'off the deep end' by letting violent Neo-Nazi off easy


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So not lies, then! 

And another whopper.

If you lie, then try to shrug it off as a mistake, it remains a lie.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

YouTube man did not say that Biden used that word either! 

Immaterial what your YouTube man said.

What is at issue is what you said.

The lie you said.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

But here's the bigger issue in this whole thing - the mistake that I made doesn't actually change the context of Biden's words. I did say that Biden specifically said he "created" the jobs, and I do admit that I probably got that from the descriptive language by YouTube man, but YouTube man also quoted Biden directly, and the words Biden used was "new jobs", which is just as false as "created jobs". So I admit I got the word wrong, but the point behind my comment is still very valid, and certainly not a lie! This also fails to take into account that I watched Biden's comments about this long before I watched YouTube man, but that's just a minor aside at this point. 

So you watched Biden's words, forgot them, heard YouTube man, parroted his words?

Yeah, I knew that already. Everyone knows that. You're a punchline. A chatbot trained on right-wing Youtube.

These absurd justifications just makes your contention that you don't parrot YouTube even more obvious. You literally must have ignored what you previously heard from Biden in order to vomit out the words you learned from the video.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

A mix. IIRC that was about the Alan Dershowitz video about the likely SCOTUS response to Colorado's decision to kick Trump off the ballot. Dershowitz has put out heaps of videos about this, I don't know if the video I linked to you was the same video I was talking about in our previous context, or whether I was getting your Dershowitz comment mixed up with the Dershowitz video I linked.

Well, you do know. I've told you. You can compare the dates. We had been discussing something weeks before the Colorado Supreme Court had even ruled. Dershowitz' video was from after their ruling.

If you say you don't know, you're lying. Again.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

But again, this is hair splitting at its finest - the worst case scenario (absolute worst case scenario) is that I got the date of this particular video mixed up with other negative comments you have made about Dershowitz.

The absolute worst case scenario is that you can't read numbers, dug up an old post of min, continued to not be able to read numbers, and tried to mislead people about the context of my comments.

Well, yes. As I said, you're stuck between the dilemma of being an idiot or a liar.

Well, the true way to go between the horns of a dilemma is just take both. That's what I'll do.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Once again, whether the exact video was the right one I was thinking of, the point is that you have posted negatively about Dershowitz and ridiculed his ability to analyse cases, and the video I posted shows Dershowitz demonstrating the same legal reasoning as SCOTUS did when they made the decision, which was the point I was making.

You might not be understanding my criticisms of Epstein's buddy. But, I wouldn't expect you to.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 I wasn't saying you had attempted to refute that specific video before, that was an implication you made into my post that wasn't present when I made it in the first place. But this is a minor aside to the broader point.

I appreciate you providing the next examples of lying right on the heels of mine. It'll make the next go around easier.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I stand by it, my posts were deleted by Facebook. I recall someone expressing doubt over my claims, but I don't recall them going further than that, and I don't know how to prove to anyone that posts that were deleted got deleted. 

Ah, it's multiple posts now. Interesting. I don't remember that in the initial claim. Of course, that's the trick with fake claims, they're just so easy to keep adding to.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Was this about people being included in covid deaths when they didn't die from covid? Eg, the motorcyclist who was included in covid deaths because he had covid when he had an accident? Or the poor 14 year old with Stage 4 brain cancer who was listed as a covid death and his family had to go online when a newspaper took up the story to say "hey, our boy did not die from covid"? If so, then I would argue that the existence of these people is proof that what I said was correct and not a lie. If this isn't what you were thinking of you may have to clarify your position because I'm not certain I get your point.

You said there were many. Dozens. Hundreds. You provided exactly (2) examples, not even good ones, and then bowed out (does the phrase "agree to disagree" ring any bells?). I don't feel the need to rehash the conversation, but you once again prove your innumeracy.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I still have not seen any lies. Even the mistakes you've pointed out are so minor they don't significantly change the actual point being made if I had gotten the data correct. It sounds like you're looking for a reason to call me a liar, rather than any actual desire to engage in a discussion. But thanks for the chat :tu: 

Well of course you're not going to admit to your own lies. Even when they're obviously proven, you decide that they're just "mistakes". I'm trying to help you learn. It's a tough job. But, you'll get there eventually.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

~ Regards, PA

Nah.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
17 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Nah.

Thanks for the chat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Thanks for the chat. 

Gotta say, it was nice to get a curated list of your falsehoods in one nice easy package for reference.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Gotta say, it was nice to get a curated list of your falsehoods in one nice easy package for reference.

A falsehoods is at least a step in the right direction from a lie. Who knows, maybe one day in the future I'll get you to actually see the forest for the trees. Ah well,  baby steps. First step was a change from lie to falsehood, then it'll be from falsehood to error, then from error to the big picture, and then we might actually be able to have a discussion.  We'll get there buddy :clap:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Gotta say, it was nice to get a curated list of your falsehoods in one nice easy package for reference.

 

Falsehoods? Lies lies lies.

Some don't for entertainment reasons, utter stupidity is funny to some, but alas I got bored of that bot/trolls raving and put it on ignore but see quotes now and then and and yeah it's kind of stupid is funny.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

A falsehoods is at least a step in the right direction from a lie. Who knows, maybe one day in the future I'll get you to actually see the forest for the trees. Ah well,  baby steps. First step was a change from lie to falsehood, then it'll be from falsehood to error, then from error to the big picture, and then we might actually be able to have a discussion.  We'll get there buddy :clap:

 

What was the big picture about the couple of cases of corrected COVID data?

Were you trying to assert some insight contrary to the data.

The big picture is that the data is correct, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

A falsehoods is at least a step in the right direction from a lie. Who knows, maybe one day in the future I'll get you to actually see the forest for the trees. Ah well,  baby steps. First step was a change from lie to falsehood, then it'll be from falsehood to error, then from error to the big picture, and then we might actually be able to have a discussion.  We'll get there buddy 

Nah.

7 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What was the big picture about the couple of cases of corrected COVID data?

Were you trying to assert some insight contrary to the data.

The big picture is that the data is correct, no?

Well, you see, there might even be dozens of such cases. PA says there are. He doesn't actually present them, but he says so. Trouble, of course, is that even dozens, in the big picture, wouldn't actually change the nature of the big picture. But he's innumerate as well. It's a common problem, actually.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2024 at 8:11 AM, WVK said:
On 4/9/2024 at 8:02 AM, Gromdor said:

The Biden's administration did a good job prosecuting those that participated and showed the world the proper way to deal with riots when he got into office.

By prosecuting George Floyd rioters?

 

GF riots lasted until May 2023 well into Biden’s term. By not pushing for the prosecution of Floyd rioters, isn’t 2024 Biden message to Antifa -leftist groups is “do whatever it takes “ we got your back” ?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 posts in I've gotta say this thread has a LOT of poor-quality arguments and low-calibre logic.

(For simplicity I'm going to paraphrase rather than cut'n'paste multiple quotes.  But I belive I've maintained the integrity of expressed positions.)

The best (i.e. worst) was: "Antifa are 'anti- fascist'.  So if you oppose what they say or do... YOU'RE A FASCIST!"

Followed closely by: "Rioting stopped when Biden was elected, therefore Biden best president ever."

Then there was the astonishing allegation blaming the hugely destructive George Floyd riots on right-wing thugs.  Meanwhile other apologists (who I guess missed that attempted sleight of hand?) are downplaying those events, claiming 'they weren't all that bad after all.'

There's a whole sub-argument about whether Biden claimed credit for 'creating' X million new jobs but that quickly deteriorated to 'liar, liar, pants on fire'-esque puerility. 

And I'm also seeing again the position that "you're not allowed to listen to opinions on t'internet (unless they agree with us)."

All-in-all, I think some people here are going to great lengths to obfuscate any proper discussion of the OP.  Which is: a judge (and we luv judges don't we? especially when they're throwing the book at Trump) has said that the law is not being applied uniformly and fairly.  Is he correct? 

I contend if the words 'white supremacist' and 'Antifa' were swapped in the opening sentence then we'd be seeing a very different style of debate.  Suggesting that many posters here are motivated more by politics than by any desire to discuss or see the law enforced without favour.

As usual I'm expecting irrelevant, childish replies like - and this was a genuine recent response from one of our less-educated members - "you're not even American so you're not allowed to express an opinion."  But if you'd like to challenge anything specific I have claimed above I'll dig back through what I've just been reading, citing authors and contributions. 

Goodnight to y'all from Croydon - Culture Capital of Britain.  (Joke?  Lie?  Misunderstanding?  Or a genuine opinion?)*

* Okay, that one's obviously a complete lie.  But not all things we disagree on need to descend to hostility, acrimony and name-calling.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WVK said:

 

GF riots lasted until May 2023 well into Biden’s term. By not pushing for the prosecution of Floyd rioters, isn’t 2024 Biden message to Antifa -leftist groups is “do whatever it takes “ we got your back” ?

Oh? Imagining some riots are we?  Or is every form of protest a riot in your mind?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What was the big picture about the couple of cases of corrected COVID data?

Were you trying to assert some insight contrary to the data.

The big picture is that the data is correct, no?

I don't remember the context of what we were discussing at the time, so my reasons for bringing up these stories is unknown to me. If I were to guess, it would be a comment on the media and their attempt to scare people into fearing the virus. Intentionally mixing up deaths WITH covid to deaths FROM covid is one tool in the media's playbook that they use to scare us into compliance. Keeping an ongoing "death clock" (a running tally of deaths listed every single news segment) is another example of this fear tactic. 

These stories prove that the media cares more about scaring people than the truth. 

If the context of my comment wasn't about this, then it was possibly a comment about the validity of the statistics being presented to us by these government agencies. These cases of deaths with covid demonstrate that they were not very thorough in vetting the numbers, so how many other cases have been misfiled as covid deaths but weren't picked up by conservative media for various reasons (because it was never the left wing media that fact checked things like the kid with brain cancer). Considering children were the group at the least risk from covid-19, stories such as this had the effect of spreading fear among parents and making people that much more compliant when it came to things like lockdowns - which you may not have had much experience with living in a very blessed part of Australia where covid restrictions were never that burdensome, but if you lived in Sydney or Melbourne (like I did during the pandemic) you were subjected to some of the harshest lockdowns anywhere in the world.  It was a disgusting fear tactic to get people to fall in line. And sadly it worked. 

Without knowing more about the post we are talking about I am guessing as to what the purpose was in my sharing it. But my reasoning was probably covered somewhere in my post above. 

Edit: just to be clear, by saying these things I am not denying the danger of covid, simply questioning the narrative that was presented in the mainstream media that kept people locked down for months and months over the course of years. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't remember the context of what we were discussing at the time, so my reasons for bringing up these stories is unknown to me. If I were to guess, it would be a comment on the media and their attempt to scare people into fearing the virus. Intentionally mixing up deaths WITH covid to deaths FROM covid is one tool in the media's playbook that they use to scare us into compliance. Keeping an ongoing "death clock" (a running tally of deaths listed every single news segment) is another example of this fear tactic. 

These stories prove that the media cares more about scaring people than the truth. 

If the context of my comment wasn't about this, then it was possibly a comment about the validity of the statistics being presented to us by these government agencies. These cases of deaths with covid demonstrate that they were not very thorough in vetting the numbers, so how many other cases have been misfiled as covid deaths but weren't picked up by conservative media for various reasons (because it was never the left wing media that fact checked things like the kid with brain cancer). Considering children were the group at the least risk from covid-19, stories such as this had the effect of spreading fear among parents and making people that much more compliant when it came to things like lockdowns - which you may not have had much experience with living in a very blessed part of Australia where covid restrictions were never that burdensome, but if you lived in Sydney or Melbourne (like I did during the pandemic) you were subjected to some of the harshest lockdowns anywhere in the world.  It was a disgusting fear tactic to get people to fall in line. And sadly it worked. 

Without knowing more about the post we are talking about I am guessing as to what the purpose was in my sharing it. But my reasoning was probably covered somewhere in my post above. 

Edit: just to be clear, by saying these things I am not denying the danger of covid, simply questioning the narrative that was presented in the mainstream media that kept people locked down for months and months over the course of years. 

You're purporting that by reporting that a data set went through a process of recording and correction, the media were spreading fear.

The States in Australia went through evidence based decision making to implement local measures.  How does the correction of data overseas affect local health measures.

It sounds to me sounds like you are rationalising.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You're purporting that by reporting that a data set went through a process of recording and correction, the media were spreading fear.

The States in Australia went through evidence based decision making to implement local measures.  How does the correction of data overseas affect local health measures.

It sounds to me sounds like you are rationalising.

We're dredging up old discussions, is there really a point in arguing this here in this thread? I can, if you like, but it seems counter productive to the thread. If you don't know how fear tactics in the media made it easier to lock down the city, I don't know what to say. 

I also find it interesting that you described these as "evidence based decision making", even though very little of the health measures instituted through the pandemic were evidence-based! Masks, no masks, multiple masks, specific types of masks.... lockdown, no lockdown... Vaccine mandates, no vaccine mandates..... take your pick but we were subjected to a whole slew of unscientific, non-evidence based measures. But that's rather a side point to the discussion, which is already off topic. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I also find it interesting that you described these as "evidence based decision making", even though very little of the health measures instituted through the pandemic were evidence-based! Masks, no masks, multiple masks, specific types of masks.... lockdown, no lockdown... Vaccine mandates, no vaccine mandates..... take your pick but we were subjected to a whole slew of unscientific, non-evidence based measures. But that's rather a side point to the discussion, which is already off topic. 

This cartoon appeared in the local media(TIMES COLONIST) here where I live in Victoria, BC CANADA in mid-December 2021.   

This was after the majority of people got their 2 shots so they could get a vaccine passport and then the Provincial government told them, "Sorry suckers, we're going to FULL lockdown again over Christmas". 

It was at this time that a lot of people around here started to question the socalled Covid science and we're saying, "WTF?!?!".

FB_IMG_1712815993792.jpg.00c449ecc4853a4ca2c779003f99ec17.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

We're dredging up old discussions, is there really a point in arguing this here in this thread? I can, if you like, but it seems counter productive to the thread. If you don't know how fear tactics in the media made it easier to lock down the city, I don't know what to say. 

I also find it interesting that you described these as "evidence based decision making", even though very little of the health measures instituted through the pandemic were evidence-based! Masks, no masks, multiple masks, specific types of masks.... lockdown, no lockdown... Vaccine mandates, no vaccine mandates..... take your pick but we were subjected to a whole slew of unscientific, non-evidence based measures. But that's rather a side point to the discussion, which is already off topic. 

You would not have known if overseas data was in error without reading it in the media.

Those types of reports can not reasonably characterised as fearmongering.  Your insistence that it is, is simply not true.

There is nothing accidental about you being incorrect.  You can't claim it is a mistake.  It's a deliberate course of conduct by you to attempt spread misinformation.

And yeah Queensland's Health measures were dependent on data.   You're wrong to say otherwise. 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Oh? Imagining some riots are we?  Or is every form of protest a riot in your mind?  

At this time one can only imagine. What do you think will happen if Biden wins or if Trump wins protest/riot wise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WVK said:

At this time one can only imagine. What do you think will happen if Biden wins or if Trump wins protest/riot wise?

If Biden wins it will be just like this term.  If Trump wins it will be just like the term before.  Trump's solution to riots has historically been "Big government with guns" which just agitates the people into rioting more.  He'll try and use the national guard again like Michelle mentioned earlier, or perhaps the real army.  He just keeps forgeting that the army was created for fighting foreign hostile powers and not supressing our own citizens.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If Biden wins it will be just like this term.  If Trump wins it will be just like the term before.  Trump's solution to riots has historically been "Big government with guns" which just agitates the people into rioting more.  He'll try and use the national guard again like Michelle mentioned earlier, or perhaps the real army.  He just keeps forgeting that the army was created for fighting foreign hostile powers and not supressing our own citizens.

Does all this happen after the riots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, acidhead said:

This cartoon appeared in the local media(TIMES COLONIST) here where I live in Victoria, BC CANADA in mid-December 2021.   

This was after the majority of people got their 2 shots so they could get a vaccine passport and then the Provincial government told them, "Sorry suckers, we're going to FULL lockdown again over Christmas". 

It was at this time that a lot of people around here started to question the socalled Covid science and we're saying, "WTF?!?!".

FB_IMG_1712815993792.jpg.00c449ecc4853a4ca2c779003f99ec17.jpg

Right.  So here is another example of the media NOT being fearmongering government toadies.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WVK said:

Does all this happen after the riots?

That doesn't make sense with your previous question:

 

6 hours ago, WVK said:

At this time one can only imagine. What do you think will happen if Biden wins or if Trump wins protest/riot wise?

You are asking if A (Riots) will occur after B (Trump/Biden winning)  and then asking if B (Trump/Biden winning) will happen after A (Riots) with the previous statement being true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You are asking if A (Riots) will occur after B (Trump/Biden winning)  and then asking if B (Trump/Biden winning) will happen after A (Riots) with the previous statement being true.

There's probably some brainy Boolean logic operators that could make sense of this, but I'm beat.

All in all, it's pretty obvious that if there's anybody left in here that doesn't want to be out there, I predict a riot.

7 hours ago, WVK said:

What do you think will happen if Biden wins or if Trump wins protest/riot wise?

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

He'll try and use the national guard again like Michelle mentioned earlier, or perhaps the real army.

Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard to protect the Capitol on Jan 6th 2021.  To police his own supporters and prevent civil disorder.  Strange but true.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview

 

  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.