Chomper Higgot

A point of view that ignores the political debate within the U.S. Then as now with isolationists and appeasers on one side those supporting US allies on the other. And.. The supply of those essential weapons material and food was delivered at huge cost in the lives of American seamen.

Russia were not fighting to ‘save Europe’.

It wasn’t the appeasers.

I know what I’m hoping will be the main take away.

It’s not the credibility of the National Enquirer that matters. It’s the credibility of Pecker’s testimony under oath, back as it is with receipts.

I think it’s one of those issues that enjoy broad bi-partisan agreement.

Good to see someone planning for the ‘Great Honor’ Defendant Trump says he wants: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/23/secret-service-preparing-donald-trump-contempt-ord/

Oh, the WW2 Graves. A reminder of the reward of appeasement.

Perhaps the Defendant thinks he’s not getting enough of attention he deserves.

You did read the post I was responding to? I’ve treated Nick Carter’s post and questions he direct to me with the respect they've deserve and given him my considered response. That’s how conversations work.

Meanwhile in court. Pecker testifies to his part in ‘catch and kill’ on Trump’s behalf while Trump’s lawyer humiliated himself. The hearing on Trump’s flaunting the partial gag order didn’t go well, the ruling has yet to come. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/23/trump-hush-money-trial-new-york

Like you I don’t mix with people I know to be anti-semites. On the very few occasions someone I know has come anything remotely at all long the lines of the ‘Jews running the world’ or ‘Soros/any famous Jew” running the world etc I challenge them with reasoned arguments and an explanation were those lies come from. I’ve spent a number of years in the Middle East, on only one occasion did I hear anyone discussing the Israel/Palestine issues, they were drunks at a bar in Abu Dhabi. They were certainly sounding wound up, it I gave them a wide berth. I do not argue with drunks at bars. On the whole I think Israel / Palestine is an issue most people avoid, perhaps because of how emotive it is but maybe also because most people aren’t that interested in anything under the banner ‘politics’. I do think though online information and hate mongering is getting far more traction than is being recognized planting seeds of hatred that will grow. So an individual might frame an antisemitic view as ‘I’ve heard it said there are doubts about’ or ‘I saw a video that suggests’ etc. That to me is evidence of people’s minds being poisoned with this filth, but calling them antisemites is very likely to close the door to the discussion that’s needed to address the dangerous lies they believe. That said, I absolutely believe the people setting up websites, social media accounts and online forums to pump this filth are calculating and manipulative antisemites. Social media and search engines operators, that’s those companies making billions, have a lot to answer on this front; they are allowing their platforms to be a conduit for this hate. Likewise advertisers who enable online hate to be monetized. Those business need to be held accountable. I’m not holding my breath.

I suspect it’s an accusation that some feel more comfortable making behind the safety and security of Internet anonymity. But yes I agree, in face to face discussions I’ve never heard the accusations leveled.

Does your misrepresentation of the protests bother me in a thread that is not about the protests? Not really, well at least not since that’s not the topic of discussion. But it’s a good attempt at a deflection. Oh and ‘grooming gangs too’. …… “Openly Jewish' man threatened with arrest by Police near pro-Palestine march”

Irrelevant nonsense. EP’s stated, and I quote: That is a blatantly false representation of what The Times article says. If EP wishes to refer to what the Times has said then he needs to do two things. 1. Faithfully quote what The Times has said. 2. Provide a link to The Times article he is referring to. What he did was use the reputation of The Times as a reliable source as a wrapper to his own pejorative opinions on the demonstrations. Disgraceful behavior and definitely in breach of the forum rules. I don’t expect him to withdraw his lie.

More misrepresentation. The actual heading from The Times is shown below. Not that I expect you’ll accept you’ve been caught out misrepresenting facts:

Any comment on the topic of discussion?

The ‘woke progressive credentials’ are a figment of your imagination., something you dreamed up together with accusations of ‘virtue signaling’.

I have absolutely no idea if the police were wearing body cams. But here’s a thing. The police wearing body cams is irrelevant to the fact that the CAA edited a video to remove scenes and context that undermine the narrative that the head of the CAA went on to promote using that very same edited video. And get something straight - I am not trying to justify antisemitism. I’ll thank you to refrain from making baseless accusations.

Correct me if I am wrong. This topic commenced with discussion of events brought to the attention of the media by a video shot and released by the campaign group CAA. A polarized discussion arises on the events portrayed in the video and described in the OP. A shot while after the leader of the CAA releases a video statement and transcript of that video statement. His statement refers to the events portrayed in the earlier video. A day later we learn that the earlier video was actually the product of editing, the original video shot on the day having been edited to remove scenes and context that are not supportive of the narrative being portrayed and statements made by the activist. And all through this I argued that videos are not reliable, subject to scene election and editing. So please give up on this one ”watch the video” mantra of yours. The video was edited to remove scenes and context that were not supportive to the activists narrative. - Fact!

The kind of “flimsy lifeline” that is substantiated by facts: “GideonFalter, the head of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)” Don’t get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with activism, I think it’s an important part of the public and political discourse so essentially to a healthy democracy. However, there’s a difference between honest activism and actively editing videos prior to publication in order to remove scenes that undermine a narrative an activist wishes to portray.

Your argument from page one was based on a heavily edited video with context scenes removed. You know the same video you were insisting others must watch.

I’m referring to him by his profession. I think it aids understanding of what he’s engaged in.

Well certainly some facts and a whole lot of relevant context.

The edited video, Brian, the edited video. You’ve been using it as the basis of your arguments.