 |
|
| Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
17-11-2016, 12:12 PM
|
#26 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Only the first article is relevant to my post with the other 3 being concerned with a totally separate issue. So that I am not distracted or deflected then, by the 3 irrelevant articles, I will concern myself specifically with that first article, which you appear to have posted the link to, in some belief that it rebuts some of the facts in my post. However, it really does NOT rebut any of the points in my post when analysed, and as a piece of so called credible journalism, it is a transparently biased and wholly duplicitous piece of crud. And, that duplicity begins before the main article proper even begins. "Seven people were arrested after a peaceful assembly at the Statehouse" Now, we are not told until much later just what those 7 people were arrested for, but just to immediately subliminally persuade us that it was not for any violent or anti-social crimes, the authors slip in those two little words - "Peaceful Assembly". Peaceful - peaceful ˈpiːsfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence. And while the word 'Assembly' is correct, in that it means 'a group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose' does it not conjure up - even unconsciously - thoughts of Assembly at school where we stood and knelt as children for the reading of prayers? Peace and Prayer then - Not a bad combination of words to convince us unconsciously that there was no violence or anti-social behaviour at all in Indianapolis. So perhaps those 7 people were arrested for 'Wearing LOUD clothes in a QUIET area? This propaganda-laden, biased rag is also duplicitous about the number of 'Peaceful' protesters' who were present, deceitfully using a phrase which suggests it was around 500, when it was actually nearer 3,000 according to numerous other non-partisan media sources: "More than 500 people gathered at the Indiana Statehouse on Saturday" is the IndyStar version, but the following is more typical of other media reports: "Around 3,000 protesters first came together around 5 p.m. on the south lawn of the Statehouse. They stayed there for roughly an hour and a half, roughly 500 started marching toward Monument Circle. After lapping the Circle a few times, they broke off with one group going north from the Circle, and a second going south." Anyway, before we start to believe the B.S. propaganda of this skewed article that this was a 'Peaceful Assembly", lets look at the caption ON the actual video just above the one dealt with above: "7 arrested" and "2 Police Officers Receive Minor Injuries". Again, there is NO explanation yet of just WHAT injuries these 2 officers suffered or HOW they were caused at this 'Peaceful Assembly', so perhaps these 2 officers were so caught up in all those vibes of 'Brotherly Love' that they 'Squeezed too tightly when hugging each other'? Let's skip to the article proper, and the first of the "Five truths that dispel rumors about the anti-Trump rally in Indianapolis": 1. The Indianapolis rally was organized by locals. "IndyStar heard claims that professional protesters were being bused into Indianapolis and other cities. Trump himself fired off a tweet blaming "professional protesters" for the demonstrations against his presidential victory. We found no evidence of out-of-town agitators." The Indianapolis rally MAY well have been organised by 'locals', but the EVIDENCE that billionaire and Trump enemy George Soros PAID professional agitators and political activists to infiltrate these 'rallies' with the INTENTION of creating lawless acts and trying to escalate the protest into a violent riot, is both preponderous and wholly convincing, so the fact that the IndyStar could 'find no evidence of out-of-town agitators, says more about their inefficient investigative qualities than it does about the facts that 'out-of-town agitators were INDEED present. Here's another quote by Indianapolis Police Chief Riggs: "We believe that we have some instigators that arrived in our city," trying to start a riot, Riggs said. The above said - that does not preclude resident Indianapolis Protesters from also engaging in the violence which I STATED occurred but which FACT you DENY. Oh - wait a moment! Much FURTHER down the article - almost hidden - are the following revelations: "Lukas Palmer 22, Washington Indianapolis - charged with BATTERY ON PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICIAL WITH INJURY and DISORDERLY CONDUCT." "Cody Clark 22, Lafayette Indianapolis - charged with BATTERY ON PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICIAL WITHOUT INJURY and DISORDERLY CONDUCT and RESISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT. " Battery! Oh, I guess these two didn't read the script which said it was a 'Peaceful Assembly'. 2. The arrested protesters were Hoosiers No argument there - They were. 3. No one was seriously hurt "One police officer was elbowed in the face while making an arrest. Police used pepper pellets and chemical spray to disperse unruly marchers." I love the B.S. in this piece of propaganda - 'No one was SERIOUSLY hurt' - OK. That's fine then, but define 'seriously' and what about the other police officer and the Public Service officials who were injured - 2 by assault? I wonder if 'Pepper Pellets' and 'Chemical Spray' is Standard Police Response Tactics when confronted by 'Peaceful Assemblies'? All you Baptist Ministers and your congregations better 'Lock Those Church Doors Brethren' once you're inside on a Sunday Morning, because once those cops HEAR that Gospel Music they're likely to come STORMING IN and whup your ass with Pepper Bullets and Chemical Spray. NEXT: 4. There was no property damage "There were reports of rock-throwing and chants of "Kill the police," but police said no property was damaged during the protests". Whoopee!! No Property Damage - that's it then, all the proof that we need that this was just a 'Peaceful Assembly' with NO VIOLENCE - if we conveniently IGNORE the INCITEMENTS TO MURDER POLICEMEN and the VIOLENT HURLING OF ROCKS AT THEM. 5. Metropolitan police assisted and protected the marchers "Police officers blocked traffic while the protesters marched from the Statehouse to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. The streets remained closed from about 5-8 p.m., when officers asked protesters to move onto the sidewalks. "We wanted to make sure their first amendment rights were protected, even to the point where we shut down traffic," Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs said." More attempts at subliminal persuasion to suit this rag's biased agenda - "PROTECTED THE MARCHERS" - FROM WHOM? There was NO Counter Protesters present in any confrontational position and therefore no need to 'protect' the 'marchers' from anything or anyone - the only violence issued from the 'marchers' themselves - Here's another quote from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs which the rag IndyStar conveniently omitted to report: Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs said: "At one point, Trump supporters showed up to counter-protest but officers asked them to leave so they didn't make the situation more tense, and they agreed to go". The entire phrasing of the article is deceitful, because FAR from the Police gleefully cooperating with the protesters in some type of pre-agreed amicable pact as the article suggests, the police had NO other CHOICE but to ESCORT them - not for the protesters safety, but for the sake of ENSURING as little lawlessness and disruption to the lives of non-participant residents as possible. Here's more from the Indianapolis Police Department: "The north group splintered off further, entering the roadway. Drivers had to stop to avoid hitting anyone. Even though protesters violated city ordinances by crossing into the street and blocking traffic, Metro Police said they focused on stopping traffic to keep the protesters safe and didn’t arrest or cite anyone for violating those ordinances. Not much difference from the shamefully biased reporting of the rag you are using for rebuttal is there Dezzy? Here's another quote from Chief Riggs not reported in the IndyStar: "Demonstrators threw rocks at police in Indianapolis, slightly injuring two officers, according to police chief Troy Riggs. And COMPARE the rest of the above article's claims with this reportage from more than one source: "Some protesters began chanting threats including "Kill the Police," and officers moved in to arrest seven demonstrators. Police briefly fired pepper balls into the crowd during the confrontation." I stated that those who claimed that the 'protests' which I specifically listed were 'peaceful' were in DENIAL. You rebutted my statement. Well, the TRUTH IS OUT THERE Dezzy - One just has to search for it with an open mind and a degree of REAL objectivity. Now, on to your totally erroneous misrepresentation of my post: "One quick Google search has led to several articles about the Portland incidents, most of the arrested individuals were from out of state and didn't even vote. The violent incidents were likely the result of people simply looking for a fight rather caring about or wishing to protest the Election. I can't see anything about any supposed acts of vandalism on the LA protests, making out that blocking traffic is akin to an act of violence is rather silly though. "Here's an article you should read about the Indianapolis protests. Not exactly the anarchy you were making it out to be, huh? Nope - You are the one being 'rather silly', by posting a link to an article which you chose to rebut my post, but which repeatedly 'shoots itself in the foot' and actually INDICTS the rioters and endorses the claims in my post. AND in also ERRONEOUSLY responding to claims which you perceived to be in my post that are simply NOT there: a) I never stated ANYWHERE in my post, ANYTHING about just WHERE the arrested 'protesters' were from. I KNEW that of the 112 people arrested in Portland, over half of them were from 'Out Of The State', and that at least 69 of them were not registered to vote in the state, and that 34 of them did not vote in the Presidential Election. I knew all of this because I had RESEARCHED and collated such FACTS for an article I was going to post on George Soros - the billionaire agitator behind The Ferguson Riots, The Charlotte riots and the anarchy present in some of these Anti-Trump protests. But I did NOT include such details in my post because they are totally irrelevant to my valid claim that these were NOT 'Peaceful Protests'. In light of ALL the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE - written testimony AND Video recordings, in addition to the number of arrests made and the CATEGORY of OFFENCES behind those arrests, then THERE IS NO possible way that any impartial, reasoned and REASONABLE person would STILL CLAIM that the 'protests' mentioned in my post were PEACEFUL. So I should not even be answering your response to my post. However: Look at what you write in rebuttal of my claim that the violent riots were more akin to anarchy than 'Peaceful Protest': "The violent incidents were likely the result of people simply looking for a fight rather caring about or wishing to protest the Election." You are actually AGREEING with me. 'Violent incidents by those there with a DIFFERENT agenda than protesting about the Election' This is ANARCHY. Not PEACEFUL PROTEST. These agitators were paid to go to Portland and incite violence, to create lawlessness and try to invoke a riot. You then write: "I can't see anything about any supposed acts of vandalism on the LA protests, making out that blocking traffic is akin to an act of violence is rather silly though." b) I NEVER said ANYWHERE in my post that 'blocking traffic' in LA - or anywhere else for that matter - was an act of violence. I listed such acts because my post was also about the anti-social aspects of the riots and protests as distinct from 'Peaceful Protest'. THERE IS NOTHING 'PEACEFUL' OR 'SOCIABLE' ABOUT MOB ACTIONS WHICH CLOSE INTERSTATES FOR OVER AN HOUR - NOT FOR ALL THOSE MOTORISTS WHOSE LIVES ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON AND INTERRUPTED, ANYWAY. c) The fact that YOU personally cannot find anything about any acts of vandalism on the LA Protests just means that you did not invest the same amount of time and diligence on researching as I have, In fact, you open your rebuttal response with the very words: "One quick Google search". Well, I'm afraid Dezzy, that 'One quick Google Search' has failed to win your argument for you, and I STAND BY every word in my post. .
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) .................................................. .. Press The Spoiler Button to See All My Songs Spoiler: Last edited by kirklancaster; 17-11-2016 at 12:18 PM. |
|||
|
 Reply With Quote
|
|
|
Threaded Mode