Another Trump hater exposed

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ya right, you have people like Bill Maher calling the kid a "smirk face little prick" and Trevor Noah saying how "you just want to punch the kid in the face."   Meanwhile, the kid is falsely and negatively portrayed in newspapers and plastered all over the internet as they rake in ad revenue at his expense.  The kid deserves some compensation for such extreme internet bullying from some of the deepest pockets in the business.

So why isn't Bill Maher a defendant? Trevor Noah ? All of the other news organizations?

The WP isn't an internet bully. They have 1st amendment protections as a genuine new organization.

Why are these other bullies not named as defendants. With the tremendous, egregious, damages to a 16 year old child's, business and interpersonal relationships. Stated in new pleadings?

Beyond that. How did this "kid',"child" from the Covington Catholic family. Together with all the other "children" get to this abortion rally in the first place. If they didn't have a orchestrated political objective that they had formulated on their own. Who did? Who decided that $24 MAGA hats for a substantial number of them. Would assist in the abortion debate?

Edited February 22, 2019 by Phil1111

[Coreece 190]

39 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

-The "child" was smiling the whole time he was face to face with the native man. Who subsequently stated that he felt threatened by the "child".

If you actually watched the videos, you'd see that that wasn't the case.

Why do you continue to buy into the false narrative that your liberal media already retracted?

 

[Coreece 190]

43 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

So why isn't Bill Maher a defendant? Trevor Noah ? All of the other news organizations?

I don't know, maybe Wapo was the first to report the false story and responsible for it going viral.  I don't really care, nor do I feel sorry for them.  This is all beside the point.  If you look at my original post on the issue, it wasn't really about the lawsuit, it was about those on the left that are so desperate to get Trump out of office that they're willing to sacrifice their credibility to do so.

 

51 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The WP isn't an internet bully. They have 1st amendment protections as a genuine new organization.

A genuine news organization has a responsibility to perform it's due diligence before publishing bogus stories.

 

57 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Why are these other bullies not named as defendants. With the tremendous, egregious, damages to a 16 year old child's, business and interpersonal relationships. Stated in new pleadings?

Beyond that. How did this "kid',"child" from the Covington Catholic family. Together with all the other "children" get to this abortion rally in the first place. If they didn't have a orchestrated political objective that they had formulated on their own. Who did? Who decided that $24 MAGA hats for a substantial number of them. Would assist in the abortion debate?

Dude, what's your point?  Also, your continued misuse of periods.  Is starting to get annoying.

[Phil1111 910]

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

I don't know, maybe Wapo was the first to report the false story and responsible for it going viral.  I don't really care, nor do I feel sorry for them.  This is all beside the point.  If you look at my original post on the issue, it wasn't really about the lawsuit, it was about those on the left that are so desperate to get Trump out of office that they're willing to sacrifice their credibility to do so.

 

A genuine news organization has a responsibility to perform it's due diligence before publishing bogus stories.

 

Dude, what's your point?  Also, your continued misuse of periods.  Is starting to get annoying.

I don't know dude. You and I have gone back and forth. I'm making only one point.

An ambulance chasing lawyer. Has combined with trump supporting parents and their politically active 16 year old.  To shake down the Washington post. Not other media, not other parties that acted worse. Its a shakedown.

I have stated this same concept more than three times. Yet you keep restating other irrelevant facts and particulars that are irrelevant to that central motivation. You never quoted the pleadings. Which are entirely political. You never substantially addressed the damages to the MAGA 16 year old that chose the encounter. Nor did you address the students school. Which also, initially stated that the student was in the wrong. Which apologized for the actions. Which was never named, nor included as a defendant. When you say you don't know. You have to reflect on the point I'm trying to make.

In fact, by the time his school had finished their investigation. Said that they felt he had done nothing wrong.So his own school, maintained the same positions as the WP. The same institution that he had to attend weekly. The one his parents chose. The Washington Post had for a week reported that the entire affair was unclear as to what was going on.

No, I am not a WP subscriber, nor a Amazon shareholder. I just have a nose for BS. Especially when lawyers and politicians attempt spin/B.S.

When I was 16, I like most kids, could care less about politics. In fact politics was irrelevant until I was mid thirties. He is politically 'conscious" and that arises solely from his parents. There is nothing wrong with that. Its an admirable quality. But if you choose to advocate political ideas. You better have the intellect(the "child", not yourself, my point here) and the breadth of political consciousness to support your positions. I'm not attacking this 16 year old. This is directed at his parents. They chose his religion, his school, to bus him to this "right to life" protest, allow him to wear a MAGA hat. To stand face to face with the native drummer. To approve this lawyer/political shakedown. My issue is with them.

I have said all I'm going to say on this matter.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Phil1111

[Rick 67]

Phil you are still blaming the incident on the kid. He should be able to  wear whatever hat he wants without an adult getting in his face trying to make some point.  The native american drummer is the one that decided  "To stand face to face" with the kid not the other way around. As far as the smile of smirk that I hear people commenting on. He looks to me to be embarrassed by the whole situation and wasn't sure what to do.

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

The kid deserves some compensation for such extreme internet bullying from some of the deepest pockets in the business.

I am assuming you are in favour of compensation for the children and families involved in the parkland shooting?

I am assuming you are in favour of compensation for the families of the children killed at Sandy Hook?

I am assuming you are in favour of compensation for all black people, whose ancestors have endured systemic, state sponsored racism?

I am assuming you are in favour of a certain pizza joint getting compensation?

The list goes on and on.

[Phil1111 910]

24 minutes ago, Rick said:

Phil you are still blaming the incident on the kid. He should be able to  wear whatever hat he wants without an adult getting in his face trying to make some point.  The native american drummer is the one that decided  "To stand face to face" with the kid not the other way around. As far as the smile of smirk that I hear people commenting on. He looks to me to be embarrassed by the whole situation and wasn't sure what to do.

 

No he is a kid. He is a pawn for his school, his religion, his parents and the lawyers. They are all playing and using him for their political purposes.

- I direct you to the thread of the christian pastor, GOP candidate in the "Election fraud does exist" thread. Thats the integrity of the christian right.

- A school that buses its children to a protest, with the permission of parents. Where the " The Black Hebrew Israelites " a known radical group, on many "watch lists". Is going to be protesting as well. Is not a school in any traditional sense. Its akin to a PAC. In the current climate in the US south. His parents and the actions that the kid undertook. Were nothing less than predictable outcomes.

- Any ordinary school that undertook the above. Would have the school administrator fired.

- As far as "He should be able to  wear whatever hat he wants without an adult getting in his face trying to make some point". He is too young to understand all of the issues to which he is participating. MAGA  thats trump politics. "Right to life" let him go to an orphanage, or visit with teenage single moms in depressive hopelessness. "christian school", the hypocrisy stands for itself. He is a product intellectually, now, of his school and his parents.

[DirtyChai 0]

.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by DirtyChai

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I have stated this same concept more than three times. Yet you keep restating other irrelevant facts and particulars that are irrelevant to that central motivation. You never quoted the pleadings. Which are entirely political. You never substantially addressed the damages to the MAGA 16 year old that chose the encounter. Nor did you address the students school.

You have it all backwards.  You are the one that replied with a bunch of irrelevant opinions and particulars about the lawsuit that were irrelevant to my initial post.  I am not the one that brought up the lawsuit, and now you keep going on with some type of half-assed gish gallop about the lawyer and the parents and the school and the other students and the pleadings and the damages done to the kid. 

What, do you want me to interview the kid and report back on how being unjustifiably smeared by liberal media across the entire country has negatively affected his life?

 

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

You never substantially addressed the damages to the MAGA 16 year old that chose the encounter.

Again, you don't get it.  You desperately keep grasping onto that false narrative that has already been walked back by even the most biased media outlets.

The kid didn't chose the encounter.  They were waiting for their school bus to go home when the black hate group started hurling insults and racial slurs.  When the Black hate group accused the kids of "giving faggots rights," they responded in disgust and reminded the hate group that homosexuals are humans too.

The elderly Native American man misunderstood the situation and thought the kids were harassing a small group of normal African American protesters, so he decided to butt in and get in Nick Sandmann's face for no particular reason. 

Then from another angle, you can see another Native American getting in the face of Nick's friend and hurling more insults.  The kid started to get agitated, but Nick actually puts his hand out and basically motions for his friend to back down so the situation doesn't get out of control.

 

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

A school that buses its children to a protest, with the permission of parents. Where the " The Black Hebrew Israelites " a known radical group, on many "watch lists". Is going to be protesting as well. Is not a school in any traditional sense.

OH NO!  Cancel all high school trips to Washington D.C immediately, or at least don't visit the Lincoln Memorial because there might be angry black men there!

 

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

As far as "He should be able to  wear whatever hat he wants without an adult getting in his face trying to make some point". He is too young to understand all of the issues to which he is participating.

The kids aren't the problem.  As I illustrated above, they handled themselves just fine.  It is the adults and the media that look foolish and immature.

Kid's should be able to visit their nation's capital and even participate in political protest if they choose.  They should be able to engage in non-violent confrontations with adults that have different world views without the media twisting the facts and dragging some kid through the mud just to make some sensationalized, bogus and bigoted political statement while collecting a ton of click-bait revenue at his expense. . .

Edited February 22, 2019 by Coreece

[gowlerk 1,911]

8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Kid's should be able to visit their nation's capital and even participate in political protest if they choose.

True. But don't lose sight of the fact that the kids had nothing to do with organizing the protest. To your original point that 60% of Americans want Trump gone bad enough to jump on this too quickly, I can't blame them for that. But the MSM was just as quick to get to the truth as they were to report what turned out to be false. As soon as they found out the facts they reported.

[billvon 2,396]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I don't know dude. You and I have gone back and forth. I'm making only one point. . . .

I have said all I'm going to say on this matter.

This is a funny progression:

"If you look at my original post on the issue, it wasn't really about the lawsuit, it was about those on the left that are so desperate to get Trump out of office that they're willing to sacrifice their credibility to do so."

So the original premise was that people lost their credibility when they hung on to a claim that has been shown to be unsupported to serve their own agenda.  They have "sacrificed their credibility" by believing it.

Then it turns out that a shyster lawyer is behind this, and that he's manipulated the media to serve his agenda - and a lot of people fell for it.  Including the poster in question.  And once it was shown that the right was so desperate to smear the left that they fell for it, then the language switched to "I don't know, maybe XXX"  "I don't care"  "it's all beside the point" "it's not about the lawsuit"  "I don't really care."

And I suspect that he doesn't even see the irony in that.

[Coreece 190]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

"If you look at my original post on the issue, it wasn't really about the lawsuit, it was about those on the left that are so desperate to get Trump out of office that they're willing to sacrifice their credibility to do so."

So the original premise was that people lost their credibility when they hung on to a claim that has been shown to be unsupported to serve their own agenda.  They have "sacrificed their credibility" by believing it.

I never said they sacrificed their credibility by believing it, you did.  That's your strawman.

What I actually said:

"It seems like many on the left are so "desperate to get Trump out of office" that they're willing to sacrifice their own credibility to do so.  I don't get it.  Trump basically provides a daily smorgasbord of sensationalized bullshit to choose from, but they still feel the need to twist the facts and make shit up."

 

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

Then it turns out that a shyster lawyer is behind this, and that he's manipulated the media to serve his agenda - and a lot of people fell for it.  Including the poster in question. 

Fell for what?  That they actually filed a lawsuit?  That practically every liberal media outlet has admitted that they jumped the gun.  That they got it wrong and dragged this kids name through the mud for no good reason?

 

44 minutes ago, billvon said:

And once it was shown that the right was so desperate to smear the left

The liberal media smeared themselves by not doing their due diligence and publishing this bogus story.

 

46 minutes ago, billvon said:

then the language switched to "I don't know, maybe XXX"  "I don't care" 

The question was why wasn't Bill Maher or Trevor Noah sued?  I said I don't know.  Maybe you have nothing better to do then research why Bill Maher wasn't listed as a defendant, maybe you really care, but I don't.

 

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

"it's all beside the point" "it's not about the lawsuit" 

Correct, my post wasn't about the lawsuit and Phil kept demanding that I basically provide the plaintiffs entire case, complete with a list a damages endured by Nick Sandmann, lol. 

Nice try tho. . .