Gunman reported to be holding judge hostage in Dublin court

JohnMc1 wrote: »

No. Welcome to reality.

He was legally an adult. He's using this tragedy for stardom. He's fair game.

My last line to Oblivious applies to you.

He used it to highlight pretty messed up US gun control laws and he's not the first survivor to do so. Then he got smeared by the NRA and the likes. But yes you are smearing a survivor of a school shooting and that's a terrible reflection upon you.

The very fact you brought him into this thread is bizarre.

batgoat wrote: »

He used it to highlight pretty messed up US gun control laws and he's not the first survivor to do so. Then he got smeared by the NRA and the likes. But yes you are smearing a survivor of a school shooting and that's a terrible reflection upon you.

The very fact you brought him into this thread is bizarre.

You didn't watch the video. Did you? That is a poor excuse for an obvious contradiction. He is not a survivor. He is an opportunist.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You didn't watch the video. Did you? That is a poor excuse for an obvious contradiction. He is not a survivor. He is an opportunist.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/media/reliable-sources-12-11-18/index.html
Conspiracy theories around the survivors of the parkland shooting won Politifacts lie of the year... Congrats for buying into the lies, YouTube videos don't automatically become truth. The reality is you can't offer a credible source for your claim because it is nonsense.

batgoat wrote: »

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/media/reliable-sources-12-11-18/index.html
Conspiracy theories around the survivors of the parkland shooting won Politifacts lie of the year... Congrats for buying into the lies, YouTube videos don't automatically become truth. The reality is you can't offer a credible source for your claim because it is nonsense.

LOL. A video where he is speaking and contradicts himself is a conspiracy theory, butt CNN long known for left wing bias is the truth to you.
LOL.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

LOL. A video where he is speaking and contradicts himself is a conspiracy theory, butt CNN long known for left wing bias is the truth to you.
LOL.

The link only cites politifact.... Yes out of context clips can misrepresent a person. As all the 911 conspiracies theories tend to do the exact same thing. I'm not gonna engage with you any further on this because it's moronic. Maybe bring it to the conspiracies forum?

batgoat wrote: »

The link only cites politifact.... Yes out of context clips can misrepresent a person. As all the 911 conspiracies theories tend to do the exact same thing. I'm not gonna engage with you any further on this because it's moronic. Maybe bring it to the conspiracies forum?

LOL. A video of him in two different is misrepresenting him how? Just admit you refuse to watch it because it goes against your narrative. Atleast be honest about it. You're just digging you're own grave at this point.

The only one being moronic is you. Its not a conspiracy theory if HE actually contradicts himself.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

LOL. A video of him in two different is misrepresenting him how? Just admit you refuse to watch it because it goes against your narrative. Atleast be honest about it. You're just digging you're own grave at this point.

The only one being moronic is you. Its not a conspiracy theory if HE actually contradicts himself.

And most will view you as a conspiracy theorist attacking survivors of a spree killing.

batgoat wrote: »

And most will view you as a conspiracy theorist attacking survivors of a spree killing.

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. Atleast you can make yourself believe your bs.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. Atleast you can make yourself believe your bs.

So, because he's expressing an opinion you donty like, you dismiss him as some wannabe celebrity?

Remind me again: are you pro or con free speech...?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, because he's expressing an opinion you donty like, you dismiss him as some wannabe celebrity?

Remind me again: are you pro or con free speech...?

NO.Its because he told one tale and then the next he told a different one. Its amazing watching the same talking heads here crying how one side refuses to look at evidence that contradicts their beliefs while they turn around and do the same thing.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

NO.Its because he told one tale and then the next he told a different one. Its amazing watching the same talking heads here crying how one side refuses to look at evidence that contradicts their beliefs while they turn around and do the same thing.

So that would be con, then.

Tell me, why do you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your belief that he wasn't there? And then cry that other people refuse to look at YOUR evidence? What makes one side of the story more believeable, to you, that the other?

(For the record: I'm neutral. I don't know if he was there or not. Although if it was me, I'd be campaigning on behave of my murdered classmates regardless of where I was.)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So that would be con, then.

Tell me, why do you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your belief that he wasn't there? And then cry that other people refuse to look at YOUR evidence? What makes one side of the story more believeable, to you, that the other?

Just like you would be on the con side for basic common sense. Why don't you look at the evidence? That's a video of him in his own words contradicting his story. Nobody else.

[Deleted User]

German reported to be holding judge hostage in Dublin court

A perfect example of when one reads what isn't there.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Just like you would be on the con side for basic common sense. Why don't you look at the evidence? That's a video of him in his own words contradicting his story. Nobody else.

Hang on a second - I said I'm neutral and now you're saying it's "just like me to be on the con side...??"

I also asked a question you ignored: why is one source more legitmate than the other? You're coming accross as a hypocrite here because you're clearly ignore evidence you don't like, while claiming others are doing so. Even if it turns out you are correct, it's more through luck that deductive research.

I've looked at the evidence. I'm looked at the response to the evidence, where he claims he returned later that day to film the aftermath. Maybe, maybe not.

Can you provide the entire interview, in which he cycles from home please? So I can have ALL the information you clearly have?

And WITHOUT assumed attacks as to which side I am or am not on?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

NO.Its because he told one tale and then the next he told a different one.

You're a trump supporter, this excuse holds no water.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I also asked a question you ignored: why is one source more megimate than the other?

Because one is a video of him in his own words contradicting himself. The other is a third party. So yes, The video of him in his own words should weigh more than some third party article.

I've looked at the evidence. I'm looked at the response to the evidence, where he claims he returned later that day to film the aftermath. Maybe, maybe not.

Except in his second interview he said that he was home that day and only bicycled to the school when he heard of it.

Can you provide the entire interview, in which he cycles from home please? So I can have ALL the information you clearly have?

It was in the video I posted.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Just like you would be on the con side for basic common sense. Why don't you look at the evidence? That's a video of him in his own words contradicting his story. Nobody else.

This fact check even goes into those out of context quotes... A teacher even backs up that he was present. By your logic, all his classmates would be saying he wasn't present.... It also includes the fact he recorded interviews with classmates when the school was under lockdown. The out of context quote refers to him getting his camera after the events transpired later in the evening to do further interviews.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/david-hogg-at-school-during-parkland-shooting/

So yep, all evidence indicates you're very gullible.

Billy86 wrote: »

You're a trump supporter, this excuse holds no water.

You believe [or on the political side ]there is more than two genders. Your argument is moot.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You believe [or on the political side ]there is more than two genders. Your argument is moot.

Care to quote where I said that or are you just making sh*t up again?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hang on a second - I said I'm neutral and now you're saying it's "just like me to be on the con side...??"

That's because John's like don't view this any differently than sports - because you didn't make it explicitly clear that you are on his side (as you're neutral) you are seen as the enemy. Same reason they refuse to question all the lies thrown at them in their little alt right circle jerk, they know if they do that they'll be ostracized and rejected by the herd.

Classic cultist mentality, basically.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because one is a video of him in his own words contradicting himself. The other is a third party. So yes, The video of him in his own words should weigh more than some third party article.

As I've said, it's not the full interview. Have you got the full interview, yes or no?

Except in his second interview he said that he was home that day and only bicycled to the school when he heard of it.

There's the hole in you argument: he does not say that. HIe explanation is that he cycled back to school later in the day, and tthere is no contradiction in his story based on the segment presented. Which is why we need the full video.

It was in the video I posted.

It was in the segment, Full video, please.

Billy86 wrote: »

Care to quote where I said that or are you just making sh*t up again?

Care to quote where I actually made fun of dead victims or are you just making **** up again?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Care to quote where I actually made fun of dead victims or are you just making **** up again?

You're just making fun of the survivors and claiming they're engaging in an elaborate lie. Basically the same thing that happened with sandy hook. Accusing everyone of being a crisis actor.