jakee 1,255 #26 January 7, 2015 CameraNewbie Quote Maybe you should keep in mind that was not what they were chanting. Ummm No. How about I don't? This post (on topic) is about what the protesters are chanting. It's not about what their not chanting. Maybe you don't understand the 'on topic' concept. It doesn't mean that no one is allowed to disagree with you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #27 January 7, 2015 QuoteThis post (on topic) is about what the protesters are chanting. It's not about what their not chanting. Nice bit of weaseling there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #28 January 7, 2015 >You do realize that the "Dead Cop" chant was faked by Fox News, do you not? ================ Fox & Friends Airs Misleading Footage To Suggest Al Sharpton Led Protesters Calling For "Dead Cops" December 14, 2014 4:32 PM EST Fox & Friends Sunday repeatedly spliced footage of Al Sharpton speaking at a Washington, D.C. "Justice for All" march with footage from a separate event in New York City where some in the crowd chanted for "dead cops" to claim Sharpton is "calling to kill cops." The December 14 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday opened with video from a December 13 march in New York City where some protesters chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." Co-host Anna Kooiman set up the footage by saying, "Thousands march with Al Sharpton against the police," and later promised "more from Sharpton's 'March for Justice.'" But the footage of protesters chanting anti-police slogans was not from Sharpton's December 13 march, which The Washington Post described as a "peaceful civil rights march led by families of the slain and organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network." . . . Although an on-screen graphic identified the "dead cop" chant as coming from the New York City protest, co-host Tucker Carlson strongly implied that all the footage shown was from Sharpton's event, stating, "Huh. So the first clip you heard people are saying, 'We want the cops dead.' And the second you heard Al Sharpton say 'We're not against the police.'" ================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #29 January 8, 2015 DanG Quote Maybe you should keep in mind that was not what they were chanting. Ummmm No. This post is about what they were chanting not about what they weren't chanting! What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #30 January 8, 2015 You should back this up with your source. Where did you read it or what's the youtube channel?What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #31 January 8, 2015 I'll save you the trouble DanG & Billvon:Article title: Fox & Friends' Falsely Edits Sharpton's Anti-violence Speech With Clips Of 'Dead Cops' Chant The above article falsely states that fox & friends falsely edit Sharton speech. Watch the video in the article. The title of the article is false! I don't see how Fox falsely edits the clips of dead cops. The Original Youtube video of Fox & Friends This above youtube link is the original video that was attached in the article above. There is no falsely edits of the chant here but yet the article above states it so. What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #32 January 8, 2015 The liberal mindset: When you don't like the subject matter, attack the source...if that fails then cry racism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #33 January 8, 2015 CameraNewbie This above youtube link is the original video that was attached in the article above. There is no falsely edits of the chant here but yet the article above states it so. Are you serious? You missed the bit where there's broadcast quality TV during the DAY of Sharpton, immediately cutting to amateur cellphone video at NIGHT of the chanting, then back to the broadcast of Sharpton during the DAY??? This was the first time I've looked at the footage tbh, and I'm somewhat boggled that anyone could be taken in by such an obvious hatchet job and seriously believe all the footage was still from the same event at the same time. Unless I'm missing something previously discussed that clears up this obvious disconnect? (Edited for typos)You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #34 January 8, 2015 mistercwood *** This above youtube link is the original video that was attached in the article above. There is no falsely edits of the chant here but yet the article above states it so. Are you serious? You missed the bit where there's broadcast quality TV during the DAY of Sharpton, immediately cutting to amateur cellphone video at NIGHT of the chanting, then back to the broadcast of Sharpton during the DAY??? This was the first time I've looked at the footage tbh, and I'm somewhat boggled that anyone could be taken in by some an obvious hatchet job and seriously believe all the footage was still from the same event at the same time. Unless I'm missing something previously discussed that clears up this obvious disconnect? Some people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #35 January 9, 2015 DanG, Billvon, MisterCwood: I don't see how Sharpton speaking in DC during daylight has anything to do with my topic of protesters chanting they want dead cops, in NY during the evening. Plain and simple, black and white, they chanted in NYC that night that they wanted dead cops and they want it to happen now! Al Sharpton speaking in DC has no bearing on this topic.What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #36 January 9, 2015 Okay, so some protesters in NYC were shouting for dead cops. Is there something about that fact you want to discuss? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #37 January 9, 2015 >DanG, Billvon, MisterCwood: I don't see how Sharpton speaking in DC during daylight >has anything to do with my topic of protesters chanting they want dead cops, in NY >during the evening. Plain and simple, black and white, they chanted in NYC that night that they wanted dead cops and they want it to happen now! Al Sharpton speaking in DC has no bearing on this topic. You said you wanted to discuss this statement: "What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!" Thus, FOX News conflating that particular protest with Al Sharpton is on-topic. Note that "on-topic" does not mean "I get to post only what I want and other people can't post anything I don't like." It just means it is limited to that topic. Some examples: "these protesters are fringe elements" - on topic "did they have tazers?" - off topic "the 'dead cop' chant was conflated with Sharpton's speech" - on topic "you're playing the race card" - off topic "that is not what they were chanting" - on topic "Well old Jim here gets to ass rape you then murder you" - off topic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #38 January 9, 2015 CameraNewbieDanG, Billvon, MisterCwood: I don't see how Sharpton speaking in DC during daylight has anything to do with my topic of protesters chanting they want dead cops, in NY during the evening. Plain and simple, black and white, they chanted in NYC that night that they wanted dead cops and they want it to happen now! Al Sharpton speaking in DC has no bearing on this topic. I was responding directly to your assertion that the Fox clip was not edited in any way to conflate the protesters with the Sharpton speech. An assertion that was clearly and demonstrably wrong. I've gone back and watched the original video of the NY protest. There's maybe 150 people there tops? I think it's a fucked up thing for them to be chanting, absolutely, but how much influence could they really have on a city of 8.4 million? They were idiots, chanting idiotic things protected under the constitution. Unless it qualifies as a hate-speech type of thing - any lawyers on here care to chime in?You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #39 January 10, 2015 Quote "the 'dead cop' chant was conflated with Sharpton's speech" - on topic I couldn't give a flying fudge about Al Sharpton. I did not even mention him in my topic whatsoever! How did he even get on this topic? I have never said in any of my posts that Protesters chanting about dead cops are tied with Sharpton!What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #40 January 10, 2015 Quote I've gone back and watched the original video of the NY protest. There's maybe 150 people there tops? I think it's a fucked up thing for them to be chanting, absolutely, but how much influence could they really have on a city of 8.4 million? You were watching a very short video segment. Within that segment there were 150 people. You were not there. Therefore, you cannot say that there was only 150 people there, tops!from the FB Page Millions march: Millions March UPDATES: Text "@millionsmarchnyc" to 23559 On 12/13/14 60,000 New Yorkers took to the streets and marched as one. But it doesn't stop there. We will keep showing them our numbers, our strength and our determination until our demands are met. Check back to this page frequently for information on how to stay involved and keep pressuring public officials to deliver justice. Present facts before you quote numbers or do a headcount on a 30 second video. Have you ever attended a protest in NYC? No you haven't because if you did, you would know that protesters march on dozens of different streets in different boroughs to meet up in one rally point.What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #41 January 10, 2015 CameraNewbie You were watching a very short video segment. Within that segment there were 150 people. You were not there. Therefore, you cannot say that there was only 150 people there, tops! It's the video you linked to originally, and it's the only reference I had - based on that my estimate was accurate. It is not "crazy" for me to work with the evidence presented. Quote from the FB Page Millions march: Millions March UPDATES: Text "@millionsmarchnyc" to 23559 On 12/13/14 60,000 New Yorkers took to the streets and marched as one. But it doesn't stop there. We will keep showing them our numbers, our strength and our determination until our demands are met. Check back to this page frequently for information on how to stay involved and keep pressuring public officials to deliver justice. Present facts before you quote numbers or do a headcount on a 30 second video. Have you ever attended a protest in NYC? No you haven't because if you did, you would know that protesters march on dozens of different streets in different boroughs to meet up in one rally point. Ok so that gives me a little more to work with. I see nothing else on that page where people are crying out for cops to die. If the protest groups were split up when they marched, is there any footage or are there any substantiated reports of any of the other groups chanting the same/similar things? I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but if the 30 second clip is the only instance of that then you still have a tiny group saying stupid shit. Not a "movement" committed to killing cops. In addition: You might want to calm down a bit. Loading up on the "crazy" emoticon when you haven't presented evidence to support your claims is a wee bit misplaced.You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #42 January 10, 2015 Quote t's the video you linked to originally, and it's the only reference I had - based on that my estimate was accurate. It is not "crazy" for me to work with the evidence presented. Easy there, Mattlock. This is not a trial. No one is going up on the stand. Quote If the protest groups were split up when they marched, is there any footage or are there any substantiated reports of any of the other groups chanting the same/similar things? dude, my post was not about 60,000 people chanting that they want dead cops or 150 people chanting that they want dead cops. This is not a statistics presentation/project. People marched on the streets of NY chanting that they want dead cops now! It's as black and white and plain and simple as it is. Quote is there any footage or are there any substantiated reports of any of the other groups chanting the same/similar things? Why does that matter? Do you need 100 instances or more than 200 people protesting to prove a point or disprove a point? Again, a headcount of over 200 people or how many different videos of people chanting that they want dead cops has no bearing on this topic. Quote I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but if the 30 second clip is the only instance of that then you still have a tiny group saying stupid shit. Statistics again? Quote Loading up on the "crazy" emoticon when you haven't presented evidence to support your claims is a wee bit misplaced. In this post DanG and Billvon went off topic and replied with Fox & Friends splicing/editing shit about Al Sharpton and The protesters, which I don't know how the fuck they came to that conclusion that I said anything about Al Sharpton, when I never even mentioned anything about Al Sharpton in the first place.There is no claim. The video of people chanting that they want dead cops is your evidence. I apologize if you need more than 5,000 people chanting that and more than 1,000 videos of different protesters located on different streets.People have chanted that they want dead cops and they want it now. Video proves that protesters were out there chanting that they want dead cops. Did you want written statements and video interview of each and every individual chanting that they want dead cops?What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #43 January 10, 2015 QuoteYou do realize that the "Dead Cop" chant was faked by Fox News, do you not? Here's my proof. Where's your proof backing up your statement? Post# 30 Post# 31What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #44 January 10, 2015 QuotePeople marched on the streets of NY chanting that they want dead cops now!So what? There are dipshits everywhere. Don't give them attention. That information has now been considered by the people reading this thread for far longer than it would have been otherwise. Model the way you want people to act; the more successful examples, the better, don't you think? If you think a particular community needs more examples, then be one yourself. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #45 January 10, 2015 >dude, my post was not about 60,000 people chanting that they want dead cops or 150 >people chanting that they want dead cops. The topic that you gave: "What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!" Thus whether it was 60,000 or 150 protesters saying that is on topic. Who was saying that is on topic. When they said it is on topic. How it was reported is on topic. If you just want to say what you want, and not have a discussion, let me know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #46 January 11, 2015 billvon If you just want to say what you want, and not have a discussion, let me know. +1. This is a discussion forum, for discussion*. If the OP is just for ranting purposes, start a blog. * I also know this is SC, so I really mean raging arguments that vie for the Godwin speed record... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameraNewbie 0 #47 January 11, 2015 QuoteThus whether it was 60,000 or 150 protesters saying that is on topic. Who was saying that is on topic. When they said it is on topic. How it was reported is on topic. How is the amount of protesters whether it was 60,000 protesters or 150 protesters an argument? Does the amount of protesters chanting really matter? It's not an argument when mistercwood keeps asking for proof for more videos and concrete proof of how many protesters were chanting. People that posted here were making claims about protesters chanting were false and what not. I provided proof that it wasn't. QuoteIf you just want to say what you want, and not have a discussion, let me know. I'm trying to have a discussion here but a poster here keeps asking for proof and evidence of the amount of protesters and the locations they protested at. Why and how did this become part of the argument, such as your post regarding bringing up Al Sharpton?What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #48 January 11, 2015 >It's not an argument when mistercwood keeps asking for proof for more videos and >concrete proof of how many protesters were chanting. Yes. Asking for proof for a claim you make about a topic is on-topic. You first posted about the "7,000 plus protesters the night they were chanting they want dead cops" so asking about that number is on-topic. >I'm trying to have a discussion here but a poster here keeps asking for proof and >evidence of the amount of protesters and the locations they protested at. See above. If you did not want to discuss the number of protesters, you should not have posted about the number of protesters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #49 January 11, 2015 CameraNewbieHow is the amount of protesters whether it was 60,000 protesters or 150 protesters an argument? Does the amount of protesters chanting really matter? Yes. You claimed 7000 protesters were calling for dead cops. That's quite a lot. There is actual evidence of approx 150 people chanting that they want dead cops. While that is not in any way a good number, it is a much much smaller number of people, and far less likely to represent any sort of concerted movement to assassinate LEO's. Let's start over then - what exactly is it you wish to discuss here?You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
