thumperclone wrote on 09/12/24 at 13:11:53:


   No

The UL, DFI, WOKE FDS, Socialists, ALLOWED/MADE it HAPPEN, with different group of people.

"...They should be responsible enough to verify facts and distinguish from silly internet stories ..."

And you will start doing that with Harris ????

            WHEN. ?????

No matter if it's true or not, it was a stupid thing to say during a debate.  There were 1000s of other ways to make whatever point he was trying to make.  What point was he trying to make?  I have to laugh every time the real message gets lost because of the bizarre delivery of info.

Was his point that ALL illegal immigrants are thieves, murderers, rapist, drug dealers, and now ALSO pet eaters?

Equally bizarre is that the moderators somehow anticipated him bringing this nonsense up during the debate.  Or, maybe they used instant AI to detect pure bullhockey as it hit the floor.

It's a recording of a City Council meeting. It's what The Citizens are Telling them is happening In their Town. You think they were going in there to tell lies?

It's a recording of a City Council meeting. It's what The Citizens are Telling them is happening In their Town. You think they were going in there to tell lies?

 This is a valuable reference.  The issue is obviously excessive volume over time over a specific area.

 I do believe they would kill ducks at a park.  I also definitely believe they can't drive for sh!t.  There are essentially no traffic laws in Haiti.  Why are they even allowed to drive?

 Why has nobody taken a picture of their pet hanging, being butchered?  The issue I have is it is too easy to be pissed about Haitians/any immigrant(s) destroying my neighborhood and just claiming by word of mouth only, that they took my pet and ate it.  Take a darn picture.

 I'd like to see more than this one account of pet murder and consumption.  

 Also, in order to "agree on a truth" you would have to provide the exact parameters of what you will consider true, specific to this event.

Ohh,play with It, BayBee!

See the people? Hear the complaints?

Do you not believe them?

 I do for the most part.  However if someone said their US citizen neighbor had their cat hanging from a tree, wouldn't you ask why they never took a picture or reported it?

 If this US citizen killed and ate multiple pets in the neighborhood, what is the likelihood not one human takes an image, or reports it to police?  They just tell a friend and that's it?

 I require more evidence for pet killing and consumption than one person saying another person told them it happened.  If there was supporting evidence I would be ok with it.

 In order to "agree on a truth" you would have to provide the exact parameters of what you will consider true, specific to this event.  I provided mine.

In the video of the people in the council meeting, did someone Say a cat was hanging in a tree?


 Yes they heard from someone that said they saw a cat in a tree.

 If someone said their US citizen neighbor had their cat hanging from a tree, wouldn't you ask why they never took a picture or reported it?

 I require more evidence for pet killing and consumption than one person saying another person told them it happened.  If there was supporting evidence I would be ok with it.  I outlined what I would need to see in order to agree it is "truth" and not hearsay.  

In order to "agree on a truth" you would have to provide the exact parameters of what you will consider true, specific to this event.  Otherwise no agreement can be made and it will be nothing more than finding articles and videos on the internet proving what one already decided was true instead of an evidence based approach.  Also known as truth.  I provided my standards, and also answered the other questions I am asked by the way.

 

 

Hearsay.
And You want a picture?
Admittedly NOT the witness To the cat.
Fuuuk


 I told you before you ever presented any evidence what my standards are.  You didn't challenge them, or have the courtesy to provide any of your own standards.  You ask questions I answer, then ignore ones asked of you.

 Let's not act like the video shows a direct "witness" to a butchered cat.  No human missing a pet was at the meeting in the video.  It literally shows the words on the screen and it is read aloud to you: "My neighbor informed me that her daughter's friend..."

 Person making statement + neighbor's daughter + friend, that's 3 people.  If somebody said my neighbors daughters friend saw JOG kill her cat, would that be a "witness" to you killing a cat?  Are you ok with that standard?  (See why it's important to set and state your own standards and not just gripe about words on the internet?)

 Or would this statement be the 3rd person in a chain of humans making a claim about you with zero evidence?  Why didn't they report that JOG killed her cat?  Would you report someone butchering your animals?  Would you ask someone accusing you why they never said anything to the police?


FFS..
You pretend THAT obviates  all the rest of the complaints brought to the government?

 No.  You pretend I do that.  I never said anything like that in any way.  Where did I say any of the statements have less merit or any words synonymous with the words "less" and "merit"?  Nowhere.  I totally agree this is plausible, however I do not agree that one post online is enough to consider it "True".  That's it.  

 In order to "agree on a truth" you would have to provide the exact parameters of what you will consider true, specific to this event.  You refuse to do that.  So this will be nothing more than a finger pointing gripe-fest about one part of a large issue.




 

if this is such a BIG deal go up there and fix it!!!