sycasey said:
Seems pretty clear this kid hasn't known what the heck he's doing at any point in this whole saga."I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement," Kyle Rittenhouse, who was recently acquitted for murder, told Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/v7F0Loid9g
— The Hill (@thehill) November 21, 2021
THOSE ARE THE REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!!! @FBI YOU BETTER MOVE YOUR ASS!!!
— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) November 22, 2021
You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
What picture would you show to highlight what had just happened in Kenosha? You don't get to just ignore words that are inconvenient to your contrivance.
This is just a petty attack on Biden when the real issue is that Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group who Rittenhouse later was shown associating with, to stand by and stand down and they took that as a supportive message.
And if you wanted to say "Pedophilia is bad, even noted BI poster U2S agrees" I wouldn't have any issue with it. But then I'm not a person who killed 2 people in Kenosha right before Chris Wallace moderated a debate where this violence was important enough for him to specifically call it out. This dog won't hunt and you know it although I guess conservatives are no stranger to lost causes from 2020, since they are still pretending that Trump won the election.
oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
What picture would you show to highlight what had just happened in Kenosha? You don't get to just ignore words that are inconvenient to your contrivance.
This is just a petty attack on Biden when the real issue is that Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group who Rittenhouse later was shown associating with, to stand by and stand down and they took that as a supportive message.
And if you wanted to say "Pedophilia is bad, even noted BI poster U2S agrees" I wouldn't have any issue with it. But then I'm not a person who killed 2 people in Kenosha right before Chris Wallace moderated a debate where this violence was important enough for him to specifically call it out. This dog won't hunt and you know it although I guess conservatives are no stranger to lost causes from 2020, since they are still pretending that Trump won the election.
There's more going on there then simply looking for a picture to represent Kenosha. You are clearly brainwashed to think a certain way. You will never admit being wrong when you agree with a cause. Carry on waving your flags. I don't like Rittenhouse. I wouldn't associate with Rittenhouse. However, I can call a spade a spade.
Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
What picture would you show to highlight what had just happened in Kenosha? You don't get to just ignore words that are inconvenient to your contrivance.
This is just a petty attack on Biden when the real issue is that Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group who Rittenhouse later was shown associating with, to stand by and stand down and they took that as a supportive message.
And if you wanted to say "Pedophilia is bad, even noted BI poster U2S agrees" I wouldn't have any issue with it. But then I'm not a person who killed 2 people in Kenosha right before Chris Wallace moderated a debate where this violence was important enough for him to specifically call it out. This dog won't hunt and you know it although I guess conservatives are no stranger to lost causes from 2020, since they are still pretending that Trump won the election.
There's more going on there then simply looking for a picture to represent Kenosha. You are clearly brainwashed to think a certain way. You will never admit being wrong when you agree with a cause. Carry on waving your flags. I don't like Rittenhouse. I wouldn't associate with Rittenhouse. However, I can call a spade a spade.
Yeah, that's what Q followers say about normal people. The fact that I understand words isn't a sign of brainwashing. But this reads as perfect projection from you.
You've now acknowledged that you don't have a claim based on the plain facts so you are going with an incorrect nuanced approach after previously arguing that no context was necessary.
Just admit it - you fell for right wing misinformation yet again. You thought Biden literally called the kid a white supremacist when all Biden did was call Trump out for failing to condemn white supremacy in connection with a specific question which Chris Wallace asked at the debate. A question which happened to reference the violence in Kenosha, which Rittenhouse was the face of.
Citation please. Which militia group?sycasey said:Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Rittenhouse was part of a militia group in Kenosha. Arguably his presence added to the violence there. Where is the lie?
Moreover, this video was originally posted here as an example of someone "explicitly" calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. No, it's not. Not unless you've got a very different definition of "explicit" than what I can find in the dictionary.
Rather than admit you're wrong - and that your argument is awful - you retreat to "but Trump.' The bolded statement is just amazing. No, the "real issue" is what we were actually posting about and when you were proven to be clearly dissembling about the video, you want to change the subject.Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
What picture would you show to highlight what had just happened in Kenosha? You don't get to just ignore words that are inconvenient to your contrivance.
This is just a petty attack on Biden when the real issue is that Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group who Rittenhouse later was shown associating with, to stand by and stand down and they took that as a supportive message.
And if you wanted to say "Pedophilia is bad, even noted BI poster U2S agrees" I wouldn't have any issue with it. But then I'm not a person who killed 2 people in Kenosha right before Chris Wallace moderated a debate where this violence was important enough for him to specifically call it out. This dog won't hunt and you know it although I guess conservatives are no stranger to lost causes from 2020, since they are still pretending that Trump won the election.
BearGoggles said:Citation please. Which militia group?sycasey said:Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Rittenhouse was part of a militia group in Kenosha. Arguably his presence added to the violence there. Where is the lie?
Moreover, this video was originally posted here as an example of someone "explicitly" calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. No, it's not. Not unless you've got a very different definition of "explicit" than what I can find in the dictionary.
Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the "militia" and a "minuteman," referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. This terminology, though archaic, is fairly common in gun circles, with more and more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution deputized them to form paramilitaries.
In the case of Rittenhouse, before he allegedly shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August, he was reportedly patrolling the city streets with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia.
Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
"I would describe him as a Minute Man," one of Rittenhouse's lawyers, John Pierce, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday, a reference to the militia best known for fighting during the American Revolution.
I have the easier and better argument. You love fighting for a lost cause which this clearly is. The video connected the kid to Kenosha, nothing more. Stop pretending you actually believe otherwise as we all know what you are really doing here.BearGoggles said:Rather than admit you're wrong - and that you're argument is awful - you retreat to "but Trump.' The bolded statement is just amazing. No, the "real issue" is what we were actually posting about and when you were proven to be clearly dissembling about the video, you want to change the subject.Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Joe Biden and his team produced the video and overdubbed Wallace's question. Joe Biden and his team (not Wallace) put Rittenhouse's picture in juxtaposition to a question about white supremacists and militia groups. Do you truly not understand that or are you just dissembling?Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
If I tweet "Pedophilia is Bad" and put up a picture of you, would you interpret that to be the suggestion that you're a pedophile? Of course you would.
What picture would you show to highlight what had just happened in Kenosha? You don't get to just ignore words that are inconvenient to your contrivance.
This is just a petty attack on Biden when the real issue is that Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group who Rittenhouse later was shown associating with, to stand by and stand down and they took that as a supportive message.
And if you wanted to say "Pedophilia is bad, even noted BI poster U2S agrees" I wouldn't have any issue with it. But then I'm not a person who killed 2 people in Kenosha right before Chris Wallace moderated a debate where this violence was important enough for him to specifically call it out. This dog won't hunt and you know it although I guess conservatives are no stranger to lost causes from 2020, since they are still pretending that Trump won the election.
And for the record, Trump lost in 2020 and HRC and Stacey Abrams are both still claiming they won in 2016.
Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Citation please. Which militia group?sycasey said:Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Rittenhouse was part of a militia group in Kenosha. Arguably his presence added to the violence there. Where is the lie?
Moreover, this video was originally posted here as an example of someone "explicitly" calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. No, it's not. Not unless you've got a very different definition of "explicit" than what I can find in the dictionary.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the "militia" and a "minuteman," referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. This terminology, though archaic, is fairly common in gun circles, with more and more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution deputized them to form paramilitaries.
In the case of Rittenhouse, before he allegedly shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August, he was reportedly patrolling the city streets with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
"I would describe him as a Minute Man," one of Rittenhouse's lawyers, John Pierce, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday, a reference to the militia best known for fighting during the American Revolution.
For the record, I don't think he was formally part of any militia but there is reason to believe that he was doing whatever it is he thought he was doing alongside some sort of militia group. His original lawyer did lean pretty hard into the whole militia thing so hard to blame people for believing him.
You are insane. I ask for proof he's in a militia. You cite to some article referencing a "militia" from THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR?Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Citation please. Which militia group?sycasey said:Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Rittenhouse was part of a militia group in Kenosha. Arguably his presence added to the violence there. Where is the lie?
Moreover, this video was originally posted here as an example of someone "explicitly" calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. No, it's not. Not unless you've got a very different definition of "explicit" than what I can find in the dictionary.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the "militia" and a "minuteman," referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. This terminology, though archaic, is fairly common in gun circles, with more and more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution deputized them to form paramilitaries.
In the case of Rittenhouse, before he allegedly shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August, he was reportedly patrolling the city streets with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
"I would describe him as a Minute Man," one of Rittenhouse's lawyers, John Pierce, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday, a reference to the militia best known for fighting during the American Revolution.
For the record, I don't think he was formally part of any militia but there is reason to believe that he was doing whatever it is he thought he was doing alongside some sort of militia group. His original lawyer did lean pretty hard into the whole militia thing so hard to blame people for believing him.
Nice theatrics for another lost cause argument. His lawyer said he was part of a militia. Why won't that suffice? Are you looking for board minutes from an inherently informal group of idiots formally appointing this moron to their militia?BearGoggles said:You are insane. I ask for proof he's in a militia. You cite to some article referencing a "militia" from THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR?Unit2Sucks said:BearGoggles said:Citation please. Which militia group?sycasey said:Unit2Sucks said:You are truly lost.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.oski003 said:oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.sycasey said:Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?BearGoggles said:Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.sycasey said:
Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:Wait what US media reported the victims were black?
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021
No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.
Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.
There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?
And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.
Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.
My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.
This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html
Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.
This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.
I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.
I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.
Here I will make it easier:Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."
— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu
The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.
Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.htmlThere’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020
??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?
I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.
How anti-truth have you become?
Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
Here's the exact quote from Chris Wallace:The video places the photo of the kid right when Wallace references Kenosha.Quote:
WALLACE: But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
You are a font of misinformation but no one can watch this video and think it labels Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Why aren't you people calling for Fox News and Chris Wallace to be sued? He's the one who referenced Kenosha.
This is just more disingenuous posturing from people who have no interest in engaging in good faith.
Rittenhouse was part of a militia group in Kenosha. Arguably his presence added to the violence there. Where is the lie?
Moreover, this video was originally posted here as an example of someone "explicitly" calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. No, it's not. Not unless you've got a very different definition of "explicit" than what I can find in the dictionary.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the "militia" and a "minuteman," referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. This terminology, though archaic, is fairly common in gun circles, with more and more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution deputized them to form paramilitaries.
In the case of Rittenhouse, before he allegedly shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August, he was reportedly patrolling the city streets with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia.Source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/30/21407756/tucker-carlson-radical-right-embracing-illinois-youth-accused-two-kenosha-killingsQuote:
"I would describe him as a Minute Man," one of Rittenhouse's lawyers, John Pierce, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday, a reference to the militia best known for fighting during the American Revolution.
For the record, I don't think he was formally part of any militia but there is reason to believe that he was doing whatever it is he thought he was doing alongside some sort of militia group. His original lawyer did lean pretty hard into the whole militia thing so hard to blame people for believing him.
Then you tell me that notwithstanding the bizarre citation to a no longer in existence militia and an attorney making a rhetorical point, you don't actually think he was formally in a militia.
So you admit there's no proof. Great. What was the point of the links?
I have heard many people claim he was in a militia (sycasey included) and many saying he's not and that the claim is a lie. https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/
I'm open to the possibility he was a militia member - but I need a link from a reputable source with actual evidence. Until then I'll have serious doubts and believe that this is must more disinformation (like people claiming without proof he was a white supremacists).
.
Quote:
Yesterday at 6pm i joined a contingent of militia along with two unaligned observers headed to Kenosha Wisconsin to protect citizens, their property and their livelihoods.
After infiltrating in Kenosha we found a group of militia made up mostly of males in their early 20's and late teens. Realizing that they were undermanned and had no leadership on ground at all. We joined them and I inserted myself into a tactical advisement role.
Quote:
We quickly setup an aid station in the building we were protecting. Kyle did most of that. We started leaving MHT and going into NML to retrieve wounded BLM and Antifa members providing them with first aid and helping them get to the hospital.
There's also video available of Rittenhouse talking about what his "job" was while standing guard.Quote:
The protesters went back and forth with KPD several times KPD up and down Sheridan. When KPD saw we were running an aid station they gassed us. So bad that I required medical care. As Kyle escorted me into the aid station they tossed us water and mockingly said they appreciated what we were doing.
I interviewed the alleged shooter before the violence started.
— Richie🎥McG🍿 (@RichieMcGinniss) August 26, 2020
Full video coming soon: pic.twitter.com/G3dVOJozN7
Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union. Sound familiar? pic.twitter.com/Rz8LonAFex
— James Lindsay, dangerous theologian (@ConceptualJames) November 22, 2021
Watching conservative Twitter implode in real time pic.twitter.com/WmkcMEK4IF
— Sat 💚🐳 (@browsersatdv4) November 22, 2021
Anarchistbear said:
Rittenhouse and the other three had a lot in common- bored young restless white guys in time of Covid who wanted to participate in an insurrection- one on the "fascist" team , the other on the "anti- fascist" team. I'm not sure any of this had anything to do with BLM unless that's what you think it is. It's a meaningless but galvanizing term
— finnegan (@handlb44r) November 22, 2021
bearister said:Anarchistbear said:
Rittenhouse and the other three had a lot in common- bored young restless white guys in time of Covid who wanted to participate in an insurrection- one on the "fascist" team , the other on the "anti- fascist" team. I'm not sure any of this had anything to do with BLM unless that's what you think it is. It's a meaningless but galvanizing term
Same kind of dudes destroyed Oakland a half dozen times during Occupy Oakland and BLM Protests. The protest is just the cover for their operation.
How the Black Bloc Occupied Oakland | East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda
https://eastbayexpress.com/how-the-black-bloc-occupied-oakland-1/
The post I shared from "Boogaloo Boy" Balch above seems to also recognize the difference between peaceful BLM protesters, Antifa, and violent agitator types. Would be nice if more of the news coverage (either left or right leaning) could have recognized this nuance.bearister said:Anarchistbear said:
Rittenhouse and the other three had a lot in common- bored young restless white guys in time of Covid who wanted to participate in an insurrection- one on the "fascist" team , the other on the "anti- fascist" team. I'm not sure any of this had anything to do with BLM unless that's what you think it is. It's a meaningless but galvanizing term
Same kind of dudes destroyed Oakland a half dozen times during Occupy Oakland and BLM Protests. The protest is just the cover for their operation.
How the Black Bloc Occupied Oakland | East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda
https://eastbayexpress.com/how-the-black-bloc-occupied-oakland-1/
*…and the Proud Boys, et al, are just the other side of the same coin (other than the being dumber and less well organized part).
BearForce2 said:THOSE ARE THE REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!!! @FBI YOU BETTER MOVE YOUR ASS!!!
— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) November 22, 2021
hello, anyone following what just happened in Wisconsin?
NEW - Person taken into custody in connection with the Christmas parade rampage in #Waukesha that killed at least 5 people and injured more than 40, including children, has been identified as career criminal and rapper Darrell Brooks (aka MathBoi Fly) pic.twitter.com/mhksbaOHYo
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 22, 2021
That did not take longdajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
If you're seeing some lunacy about a person of interest who was detained re: Waukesha, here's a brief window into how the right-wing disinfo machine works. It starts with Andy Ngo, of course. First, another reporter—not Andy—does the actual work of finding the POI's record. 1/x pic.twitter.com/0HbDCLbcFz
— Robert Silverman (@BobSaietta) November 22, 2021
dajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
In the state of Wisconsin, a man plows through a Christmas parade with vehicle killing 5 people & injuring 40 and is a career criminal and was out on bail for $1000. In a sperate incident, a teenager kills two people who attacked him in self defense and had a $2 million bail and 2 months in prison. Guess which one is white and which one is black?
dajo9 said:BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
In the state of Wisconsin, a man plows through a Christmas parade with vehicle killing 5 people & injuring 40 and is a career criminal and was out on bail for $1000. In a sperate incident, a teenager kills two people who attacked him in self defense and had a $2 million bail and 2 months in prison. Guess which one is white and which one is black?
You are conflating different bails with different crimes. You are dishonest.
Darrell Brooks, the man taken into custody over the #Waukesha Christmas parade mass casualty incident, is a registered sex offender in Nevada. He was convicted over having sex w/a child. In one of his now-deleted videos, he defended his actions, saying he was pimping the "hoe." pic.twitter.com/eBHSL0b7S4
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 22, 2021
BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
In the state of Wisconsin, a man plows through a Christmas parade with vehicle killing 5 people & injuring 40 and is a career criminal and was out on bail for $1000. In a sperate incident, a teenager kills two people who attacked him in self defense and had a $2 million bail and 2 months in prison. Guess which one is white and which one is black?
You are conflating different bails with different crimes. You are dishonest.
have fun:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/waukesha-parade-suspect-with-released-on-bail-just-days-before-deadly-tragedy/#.YZvR0sAYuds.twitter
dajo9 said:BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:BearForce2 said:dajo9 said:
Right wing media will find a politically beneficial way to frame this tragedy
In the state of Wisconsin, a man plows through a Christmas parade with vehicle killing 5 people & injuring 40 and is a career criminal and was out on bail for $1000. In a sperate incident, a teenager kills two people who attacked him in self defense and had a $2 million bail and 2 months in prison. Guess which one is white and which one is black?
You are conflating different bails with different crimes. You are dishonest.
have fun:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/waukesha-parade-suspect-with-released-on-bail-just-days-before-deadly-tragedy/#.YZvR0sAYuds.twitter
I am aware of the facts. I know the tweet you originally posted used slang to make it seem like he got $1,000 bail after murder. I know you changed a key word in your post to be factually correct while intentionally conflating the $1,000 bail with the murder. I know you think you are being clever but you're just being dishonest and stupid.
