Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Insurrection Lie II: False Reports ...Continue To Unravel.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post
    It seems to me that you are working pretty hard to maintain the claim that someone was lying.
    Not working hard at all - quite easily proving it.

    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      And, as I'm getting tired of explaining, that is not proof that he was not struck by a fire extinguisher, since it might not cause physical trauma. (Yes, that would mean he was not killed by the fire extinguisher, but the question at hand is whether anyone lied in saying that he was struck by one.)

      And since you have two different news outlets reporting that multiple sources in the police department said that Sicknick was struck by a fire extinguisher, the most likely explanation seems to be that he was actually struck by one, even if he wasn't killed by being struck by one.

      Granted, the next most likely would be that someone made it up so that he could be said to have died in the line of duty, but it doesn't seem like they would have needed to be so specific. And if you're going to accuse someone of lying, I think you would need more than that.
      I think the likeliest explanation is that since some police officers were struck by fire extinguishers someone assumed, possibly after his death, that Sicknick was one of them and the story spread. But apparently the videos taken of the incident doesn't show Sicknick even being there (of course it isn't impossible that they could have missed him or never got a shot of his face) and I would think if any of these witnesses actually had anything more than gossip one of them would have stepped forth by now especially given how this account has been called into doubt.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        Given that he was 42 years old, in the absence of evidence that he had any risk factors for stroke, I would think that injury would be more likely. If nothing else, inhaling pepper spray can cause an increase in blood pressure that can lead to a stroke, and Sicknick told his brother that he had been hit by bear spray.
        I've read accounts which said he told his brother it was bear spray while others say pepper spray and even one or two saying it might have been both.

        Boy it sure would be nice if someone in the MSM was even just a little bit interested in what actually took place and requested a copy of the medical examiner's report -- or filed a suit demanding it be released. You know, like they do in every other case where there is conflicting versions of what took place. But to date, it doesn't seem like anybody is interested.

        I guess they're too busy asking old Joe about playing video games or his dogs.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
          I didn't say you accused anyone of lying. But this thread was started with the claim that it was a lie to say that Sicknick died because he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty. I've been given enough reason to question whether he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty, but not really enough to say that anyone lied about it.
          The ones who unquestionably lied are the House Managers by presenting it as an indisputable fact long after doubts had arisen, in direct violation of what they are required to do - namely acknowledge that the claim is not proven. As I've noted, that sort of behavior typically results in cases getting overturned and even prosecutors forced to step down and often facing disbarment

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

            And the question remains, did anyone who reported that the insurrectionists killed Sicknick by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher know that that wasn't true?
            A better question now is why aren't any of them stepping forward and offering what evidence they have that this was indeed what took place.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              No - a BETTER question is WHY did they make such statements? Are they that incredibly bad journalists that don't check facts before making such serious allegations?

              Are they too biased to do some simple FACT CHECKING? (on that, I would say a resounding "you bet your bippy")
              If journalists were presenting it as news, rather than mentioning in passing what had already been widely reported, then I would expect them to have checked their facts. But no, I don't expect journalists (much less politicians) to fact check everything they say.

              Of course, if it had been widely debunked before they said it, then that would be different.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                Given that he was 42 years old, in the absence of evidence that he had any risk factors for stroke, I would think that injury would be more likely. If nothing else, inhaling pepper spray can cause an increase in blood pressure that can lead to a stroke, and Sicknick told his brother that he had been hit by bear spray.
                Not particularly, strokes are still rather common in younger people (and getting more common as the health of people in htis country declines due to diet, things like smoking/drinking/etc.).
                https://www.sutterhealth.org/health/...age-forty-five
                We think of stroke as something that happens to older people. But every year, about 70,000 Americans under age 45 have strokes.

                “About 10 to 15 percent of strokes occur in children and adults under age 45, and that number is rising,” says David Tong, M.D., medical director of the Stroke Care Center at California Pacific Medical Center.

                What Causes Stroke in Younger People?

                Some of the risk factors for stroke in younger adults are different than those found in older adults, but many are the same—smoking, heavy drinking, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Bad health habits are not the only causes of strokes in young people, however. Other conditions can bring about strokes before age 45, including several that are inherited.
                “Even when inherited conditions raise your chances of having a stroke, there may be actions you can take to reduce your risk,” Dr. Tong says.




                Blood Disorders

                Some people develop or inherit conditions that cause blood to clot (coagulate) more easily, which can increase the risk of an ischemic stroke.
                “Coagulation problems can be inherited, and some are detectable with a blood test,” Dr. Tong says. “So if you or a close relative has developed blood clots, talk to your doctor about possible tests and treatments.”




                Heart Conditions

                Some people are born with or develop heart conditions that can cause or allow blood clots in the heart to travel to the brain.
                A small percentage of strokes in young adults are caused by a very common condition called patent foramen ovale. About 25 percent of people have PFO, which develops when a hole between the heart's chambers doesn’t close during the first few months after birth. Doctors can diagnose PFO with a simple echocardiogram. However, because the vast majority of people with PFO never have a problem, doctors seldom treat it unless you have symptoms.
                “There are other heart conditions that occasionally cause strokes,” Dr. Tong says, “and doctors can diagnose many of them easily and safely with echocardiography or other noninvasive tests.”




                Aneurysms

                Aneurysms form when blood vessel walls weaken and form bubbles that can rupture, causing hemorrhagic strokes. Some people are born with blood vessel malformations. Research shows that there are also genes and inherited conditions that increase risk. Aneurysms can occur at any age, but ruptured aneurysms most commonly affect people between ages 30 and 60.
                “Inheritance plays a more-than-significant role in aneurysm formation,” Dr. Tong says. “And smoking dramatically increases that risk.”
                Talk to your doctor if a parent, brother or sister has experienced an aneurysm. There are tests and treatments available that can reduce your chances of experiencing a ruptured aneurysm.


                But certainly, now you're talking more sensibly - the inhaling of the pepper spray very well could have contributed to the stroke (or at least contributed to his body reacting to it, which aggravated already present conditions). FAR more likely than the imaginary fire extinguisher strike that left behind zero physical evidence.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                  I didn't say you accused anyone of lying. But this thread was started with the claim that it was a lie to say that Sicknick died because he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty. I've been given enough reason to question whether he was hit with a fire extinguisher, or that he died in the line of duty, but not really enough to say that anyone lied about it.
                  Oh. Well if that's the case, then yeah, there doesn't appear to be any truthfulness behind the people rumormongering that he was hit by a fire extinguisher.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                    If journalists were presenting it as news, rather than mentioning in passing what had already been widely reported,
                    Wow

                    then I would expect them to have checked their facts. But no, I don't expect journalists (much less politicians) to fact check everything they say.
                    Even when writing it down in legal documents for a serious event like an impeachment?

                    Of course, if it had been widely debunked before they said it, then that would be different.
                    Wow.... You really have no clue. OR, you're so brainwashed by the left you can't think critically. I'm guessing you must be high school or junior high.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      The ones who unquestionably lied are the House Managers by presenting it as an indisputable fact long after doubts had arisen, in direct violation of what they are required to do - namely acknowledge that the claim is not proven. As I've noted, that sort of behavior typically results in cases getting overturned and even prosecutors forced to step down and often facing disbarment
                      As I have noted, but it doesn't matter, because didn't have proof that he was NOT conked on the head. So, just go with the gossip.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                        Oh. Well if that's the case, then yeah, there doesn't appear to be any truthfulness behind the people rumormongering that he was hit by a fire extinguisher.
                        And it took dragging him kicking and screaming to THAT conclusion..... the boy is hardwired to believe a lie.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                          So, in your world, it's perfectly acceptable for Journalists - and politicians - to declare something as fact simply because they don't know for sure it's not fact?

                          Think how DUMB that is ..... "yes, Congressman Jones raped that poor young woman..... um... at least we don't know that he DIDN'T, but that's the talk around the water cooler".

                          Seriously --- are you a grown adult? Not being facetious at all --- you reason like a child.
                          You are misconstruing what I've said, which is kind of childish in itself.

                          From what I've seen, some news outlets reported what they were told by sources in the police department, which was that Sicknick died after being struck by a fire extinguisher. I have no reason to believe that the sources, or the news outlets, lied. I also have no reason to believe that those news outlets did anything improper in reporting what they were told.

                          Somewhere along the way, someone took that story and modified it to say that Sicknick was killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher. That wasn't necessarily a lie, but it definitely was poor reporting. If I knew who that was, I would consider them untrustworthy as a news source. I wouldn't necessarily think they were part of a conspiracy.

                          The House managers made a claim that Sicknick was killed by being struck by a fire extinguisher. They also gave their source for the claim, which was the NYT article that merely stated that he died after being struck by a fire extinguisher. If they had known that the fire extinguisher was not likely the cause of death, then what they did would have been unconscionable. But I have no reason to believe they thought they were making a false claim, especially since what they claimed was being widely reported at the time.

                          Some would say that the House managers had a duty to be certain that everything they said was true. I disagree. If it was a FISA court, that would be the case, since the accused would not have anyone representing him. But the president had lawyers who were free to double-check and challenge anything the House managers said. The only real obligation was to not put forward anything that they knew was false, even if it was a court of law rather than an impeachment.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            You are misconstruing what I've said, which is kind of childish in itself.
                            No, only if I were purposely misconstruing. The fact is that you keep looking for every excuse to believe or dismiss the lie.

                            From what I've seen, some news outlets reported what they were told by sources in the police department, which was that Sicknick died after being struck by a fire extinguisher. I have no reason to believe that the sources, or the news outlets, lied. I also have no reason to believe that those news outlets did anything improper in reporting what they were told.
                            It is their responsibility as journalists to report the facts - the truth - not rumor or gossip. You seem totally fine accepting the rumors and gossip.

                            Somewhere along the way, someone took that story and modified it to say that Sicknick was killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher. That wasn't necessarily a lie,
                            It was not a fact. Journalists are to report facts and truth - not repeat gossip.

                            but it definitely was poor reporting. If I knew who that was, I would consider them untrustworthy as a news source. I wouldn't necessarily think they were part of a conspiracy.

                            The House managers made a claim that Sicknick was killed by being struck by a fire extinguisher.
                            Well, thanks for conceding that fact. And it's because it served their purposes of trying to try Trump on emotion, gossip, hysteria... rather than fact.

                            They also gave their source for the claim, which was the NYT article that merely stated that he died after being struck by a fire extinguisher. If they had known that the fire extinguisher was not likely the cause of death, then what they did would have been unconscionable. But I have no reason to believe they thought they were making a false claim, especially since what they claimed was being widely reported at the time.

                            Some would say that the House managers had a duty to be certain that everything they said was true. I disagree. If it was a FISA court, that would be the case, since the accused would not have anyone representing him. But the president had lawyers who were free to double-check and challenge anything the House managers said. The only real obligation was to not put forward anything that they knew was false, even if it was a court of law rather than an impeachment.
                            So, which is it --- high school or junior high? Cause that's some of the dumbest arguing I've seen in quite a while.

                            If the House Managers had been interested in the TRUTH, they would not have been so gung-ho in a rush to bring a dishonest emotional hysterical case before the Senate.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Cause that's some of the dumbest arguing I've seen in quite a while.
                              It's easy to say it's dumb, a little harder to actually point out flaws.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                                It's easy to say it's dumb, a little harder to actually point out flaws.
                                I have pointed out the flaws - you simply refuse to see them. You're too busy making excuses for the journalists and politicians.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                324 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X