- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:07 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
See this is the issue. Both are just as dishonest and reprehensible
No, no they are not. Jones might use projection a little too much. This Pollock guy, on the other hand, blatantly distorts facts that have been scrupulously recorded in a court of law.
quote:
The action's of others in response is irrelevant.
Not if a viable correlation can be shown between the actionable rhetoric of one person and the actionable consequences of another.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:07 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The action's of others in response is irrelevant.
In a vacuum, maybe but we are talking about real property here. The rioters and those inciting the riot are all culpable. Any innocent bystanders who are hurt also have a cause of action. Sorry you disagree, but they are.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:12 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
ALSO: WTF does this "new evidence" have to do with anything? If there was a reported theft, the cops were right to operate under that assumption.
Now the store owner has a case of libel against the film maker. they just told the world he was involved in a drug deal.
Now the store owner has a case of libel against the film maker. they just told the world he was involved in a drug deal.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:14 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
I would just like to interject this is why I consider documentaries to be completely worthless. It is an extremely rare exception where you have a documentary filmmaker who isn't really just making an agenda piece. Calling these things documentaries is an insult to the genre
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:18 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:I agree that the rioters are culpable, but intentionally inciting a riot is a far higher bar than what you're arguing.
The rioters and those inciting the riot are all culpable. Any innocent bystanders who are hurt also have a cause of action. Sorry you disagree, but they are.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:23 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I agree that the rioters are culpable, but intentionally inciting a riot is a far higher bar than what you're arguing.
That is what the son of a bitch is trying to do.
Our fricked up legal system will probably let him get away with it but that is exactly his goal.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Does the film tell people to riot? If it does, then I can see the accusation of inciting a riot. Otherwise, the blame for idiots rioting, who are likely looking for any excuse to riot, should be held solely by the idiots rioting.
They shouldn't be charged, but don't be so simpleminded as to the manipulation intended by this film.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:30 pm to gthog61
quote:You mean our legal system that requires the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal matters?
Our fricked up legal system will probably let him get away with it but that is exactly his goal.
Or our legal system whose most important legal document is a thing called the Constitution, which explicitly protects free speech, and requires a high bar to restrict or punish speech?
Of all the things wrong with our legal system, those are probably two the most important barriers to making it more messed up.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:32 pm to buckeye_vol
Can't wait to see the riots destroy the liquor store, McDonalds, and the wig place again on TV.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:32 pm to texashorn
quote:I'm not defending the film itself; I'm just defending the right of its existence. But I also think the filmmaker deserves all the criticism and ridicule that its dishonesty causes.
They shouldn't be charged, but don't be so simpleminded as to the manipulation intended by this film.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:41 pm to buckeye_vol
I'm admittedly late to the thread, but the target in the OP is CNN for perpetuating the questionable film.
Why would CNN do this other than to stir up trouble? Have you criticized CNN?
Why would CNN do this other than to stir up trouble? Have you criticized CNN?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:44 pm to PoundFoolish
quote:So there aren't a distortion of facts, or just outright lies;
No, no they are not. Jones might use projection a little too much. This Pollock guy, on the other hand, blatantly distorts facts that have been scrupulously recorded in a court of law.
1. Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon bombing, Orlando Shooting, etc. were all government false flags?
2. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset?
3. There is a group of elite leaders who are actually of some alien race?
4. Beyonce is funded by the CIA to create a race war?
5. Obama and Hillary are LITERALLY (not figuratively) demons from hell?
And we could go on and on.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:47 pm to texashorn
quote:Because that's their best way of staying relevant? This thread may be an example.
Why would CNN do this other than to stir up trouble?
quote:Yes, although I've defended some of their anchors (Cooper, Tapper, and John King). Their biggest problem is they hire the the worst, most biased pundits (and Cuomo is bad and getting worse).
Have you criticized CNN?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News