Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

Uses a lot of hair gel to keep that tarnished halo in place and glowing for the gullible.

There are none so blinded by that halo as those who do not want to see the truth. Shiny things. Look here not there.

Repeatedly disagreeing with and arguing actual provable facts -- blows the mind.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

Uses a lot of hair gel to keep that tarnished halo in place and glowing for the gullible.

There are none so blinded by that halo as those who do not want to see the truth. Shiny things. Look here not there.

Repeatedly disagreeing with and arguing actual provable facts -- blows the mind.

Still waiting for them to be shown Annee.

I noticed you are still bloviating and not providing said..facts.

I am enjoying your twos banter though. Reminds me that I'm up against some intellectual powerhouses.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

Uses a lot of hair gel to keep that tarnished halo in place and glowing for the gullible.

There are none so blinded by that halo as those who do not want to see the truth. Shiny things. Look here not there.

Repeatedly disagreeing with and arguing actual provable facts -- blows the mind.

It's surreal and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over with what is either stubborn bias or comprehension problems, or both with some members here. Not quite sure what the problems are here with some members, it's weird.

a reply to: quintessentone

Well, if you could be consistent in your application of logic and also apply the same standards to one target as you do another, there wouldn't be what you describe as "stubborn, bias or comprehension problems."

Not quite sure what the problems are here with some members, it's weird.

Oh, we can see the problem. And it's has been quite fun to watch how easily it presented itself.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Well, if you could be consistent in your application of logic and also apply the same standards to one target as you do another, there wouldn't be what you describe as "stubborn, bias or comprehension problems."

Not quite sure what the problems are here with some members, it's weird.

Oh, we can see the problem. And it's has been quite fun to watch how easily it presented itself.

Many members are consistent including me, that's not the problem and you know it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Like when you tried to deny a quote you made?

Or when changed the definition of rape?

You are not consistent sir.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Like when you tried to deny a quote you made?

Or when changed the definition of rape?

You are not consistent sir.

I didn't do any of that, your comprehension or inability to understand context is the problem, IMO. Or you read into others' posts only what you want to read.

Annee and I were discussing the dismissal of verifiable facts by some members here, which includes you.

a reply to: quintessentone

Thats fine. I mean it's not like theres a digital record of it......



What you think of my cognitive abilities are irrelevant to me. I don't value your input or opinion so it's all good.


I'm only here to showcase your honesty and integrity. Annee knows how this works......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Thats fine. I mean it's not like theres a digital record of it......



What you think of my cognitive abilities are irrelevant to me. I don't value your input or opinion so it's all good.


I'm only here to showcase your honesty and integrity. Annee knows how this works......

Emotion time, is it?

a reply to: quintessentone

You don't have any other mode apparently.


Unless you wish to getting back to finding those facts?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

You don't have any other mode apparently.


Unless you wish to getting back to finding those facts?

Facts have been presented to two juries, Trump is found liable for sexual assault and defamation, get over it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Cool.


Yet he was on the hook for rape and denying that rape as the method applied for defamation.


What's there to get over?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Cool.


Yet he was on the hook for rape and denying that rape as the method applied for defamation.


What's there to get over?

He was accused of rape, that word fell within the definition of an umbrella term of sexual assault, both are criminal acts no matter what term you apply to that umbrella term - he went overboard in his denial so much so as to defame Carroll. A simple "I'm innocent" and let his lawyer handle it would have sufficed.

a reply to: quintessentone

He was accused of rape,

Yep, of which he was not found liable.

that word fell within the definition of an umbrella term of sexual assault,

Nope. That's not how laws work when there are clearly differing codified statutes.

both are criminal acts no matter what term you apply to that

This isn't a criminal trial nor does your umbrella theory hold precedent anywhere. Except here where the judge went out of his way to make such a statement.

A simple "I'm innocent" and let his lawyer handle it would have sufficed.

And this is the key point and only consistency. This wasn't about justice or law.

This was and will continue to be about shutting Trump up. Removing his most basic right because he's orange.

a reply to: JinMI

Going round in circles again, so again Trump would found liable for sexual assault and defamation by people of two juries...he can run but he can't hide.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yet the complaint was for....rape.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Yet the complaint was for....rape.

The complaint was put forth to the jury as rape, they decided on sexual assault...both are crimes.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Yet the complaint was for....rape.

The complaint was put forth to the jury as rape, they decided on sexual assault...both are crimes.

what's the difference?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Yet the complaint was for....rape.

The complaint was put forth to the jury as rape, they decided on sexual assault...both are crimes.

what's the difference?

Ask JinMi what the difference is. It is what he's been droning about on this thread since page 1.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Yet the complaint was for....rape.

The complaint was put forth to the jury as rape, they decided on sexual assault...both are crimes.

what's the difference?

Ask JinMi what the difference is. It is what he's been droning about on this thread since page 1.

did you not say:

The complaint was put forth to the jury as rape, they decided on sexual assault...both are crimes.

I just need to know what's different about them, you said this, right?