Throw bottle at police?
When police try to arrest someone, you pull the police?
Massive crowd run to police?
This movie try to make police bad, if is the best they can, I wonder in real life how bad are protesters, how good are police?
Your mindless fascism has been duly noted.
shareThe official inquiry concluded that it was a police riot. Which it was. They were viciously clubbing anyone they encountered on the street, not just protesters but businessmen & secretaries coming home from work, reporters, shoppers ...
share"Official inquiry" Where can I find the report?
Even that is true, we all know "official inquiry" can't be trust.
As trial testimony showed, there were also Government provocateurs who deliberately stirred up violence in what was otherwise a peaceful protest. This was common practice to disrupt & discredit the antiwar & civil rights movements then. That it was a police riot is not up for debate. It would have remained peaceful if not for the police. Standard practice from the police back then. I was alive then, and we all knew it then.
shareWho give that "testimony"? In a era without surveillance cameras on streets, without digital camera in everyone's hand, how is that possible to determine which side start first?
shareThere were countless photographers & TV news reporters with cameras filming it live & recording it, for one thing. You weren't alive then, were you? I was. I watched it as it happened live on TV. The protesters were chanting, "The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!" And it was. Not just American journalists, but journalists from all around the world, were covering that story as it happened.
shareI search a lot on youtube, still can't figure out who start first, all I can find are people keep yelling to police "pigs."
In this site, they even say it's both side's fault:
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/trial-of-the-chicago-7/
"80% of Americans at the time disapproved of the demonstrators tactics and blamed the demonstrators over the police."
Try searching out actual books from the period & after, and read in depth. Take a few actual history course that cover the period. It was judged a police riot when all the dust had finally cleared, not a protester riot. There's nothing more to be said on that particular subject.
shareYou keep change the evidence I want to see. First you said "official inquiry," then "testimony," then "photos, news, cameras," now is "books and history course?"
shareThe evidence I found came through my eyes and ears as I witnessed the event as it happened, you smug grease-spot. It was so brutal that CBS’s Walter Cronkite—who had been voted “the most trusted [person] in America” by popular acclaim—called the police “thugs.”
shareYou eyes and ears mean nothing to other people, it's scientific prove witnesses have very low reliability.
Thousand of people say they saw ghost, aliens, god, would you believe their "eyes and ears?"
I guess if you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, you wouldn't want the testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses who said you were innocent, since witnesses have very low reliability.
shareThis is very dumb analogy, I can show you why by just change one word:
I guess if you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, you wouldn't want the testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses who said you were GUILTY, since witnesses have very low reliability.
R_Kane, as you can see from the OP's response, he's got his mind fixed on his own "truth" and doesn't want to hear from people who were living witnesses to the actual truth.
shareHis truth is ask people to put faith in his "eyes and ears," people know who has fixed mind.
shareThis bozo wasn’t even a sperm when this went down!
shareAnd thus completely unaware of the state & tone of the country at that time, reading it through 2020 eyes without any real knowledge of what it was like then.
shareYou know what I just remembered? I remember that the Chicago protesters were chanting “The WHOLE WORLD is watching!” before the police attacked them. Young people have no idea how powerful TV news was in the 50s and 60s. Edward R. Murrow effectively CREATED TV news by putting the right-wing witch-hunts of senator Joe McCarthy on the air, trying to force people to name alleged communists. He hoisted McCarthy by his own petard. That’s what the broadcasts of the Chicago police riots did to the cops. “The WHOLE WORLD” WAS watching—and judging.
shareYou're right. To the current generation, TV is somewhat old-fashioned, just one minor aspect of media that's largely been superseded by the digital world of Facebook, livestreaming, Instagram, etc.
And not only was TV news immensely omnipresent, it hadn't yet been absorbed by the entertainment branch of the networks. It had no frills, no maudlin piano notes over sad stories, no flashy graphics. When Walter Cronkite was called the most trusted man in America, that wasn't empty hype, it was simple fact.
As we both remember, Chicago was broadcast live, unfiltered, unedited, so that we were indeed watching as it happened, along with the rest of the world. The news showed combat footage from Vietnam, wounded & dead soldiers & civilians; we could see the terrible human cost of the war—which was why so many of us opposed it.
H vs H is a great site. Other conservative sites probably have comparisions. Excerpt:
Who was to blame for the violence, the protesters or the police?
In reality, they were both at fault to varying degrees. The movie almost entirely depicts the police as the aggressors and the protesters the victims. As a result, we're shown a mostly one-sided account of what actually happened. Like in the film, the August 28, 1968 clash was dubbed by a commission as a "police riot." During the violent confrontations, there were indeed press and eyewitness accounts of police overreacting and indiscriminately attacking nearly everyone in sight, including reporters, as some officers seemed to enter into a state of panic. It didn't help that many of the officers had little training in riot control. In an attempt to control the defiant and at times aggressive crowds, police used verbal and physical means, including tear gas, mace, and hitting unruly protesters with batons. Footage of bloodied protesters was featured prominently in the media.
While the movie doesn't seem to show a single injured police officer, the reality is that the violence was coming from both sides. Approximately 192 police officers were injured. Over the years, the media and Hollywood have increasingly put the focus on the demonstrators and have almost entirely subdued the police officers' side of the story. This is evident by watching Chicago 7 documentaries and movies over the past three decades, which go from presenting both sides to barely acknowledging the violence directed at the police.
The movie shows demonstrators throwing a few bottles that break near the feet of the police. In reality, individuals who were part of the 10,000+ demonstrators threw bottles, bricks, rocks, bags of urine and feces, and numerous other objects, including spiked golf balls (a golf ball with nails sticking out of it). Officers who were there described the scene as "chaos." They also tell of glass ashtrays that were dropped on
And yet the official verdict by the official inquiry was police riot.
shareThe same government's "official inquiry" said Iraq has Weapon of Mass Destruction and issues ton of lie about Vietnam War?
shareThe government then would have liked nothing more than to blame it all on the protestors & to exonerate the police. If they could have done so, they would have. But they couldn't, because the overwhelming evidence led them to judge that it was indeed a police riot. You don't seem to have any real historical understanding of the culture & the politics in 1968, probably because you're just too young. It was a very different country then, all across the political & cultural spectrum. Trying to read it through 2020 eyes won't & can't work. You have to be able to put yourself in the period as best you can, based on a fairly extensive study of all factors then & disregard the current politics & culture of today.
shareIt have no benefit to them, so it must be true? Didn't you heard a case about Henry Lee Lucas?
sharelol. Did you bother to even watch this or did you just come straight here to spout your ignorance? The Attorney General of the United States under LBJ Ramsey Clark investigated the whole affair looking to charge the protesters but came to the conclusion in their official inquiry that it was the police that incited the riot.
There was no political motivation for Clark to manufacture this conclusion when his boss, the President of the United States, was pressuring him to pursue the protesters. It was only because of the corrupt judge that this evidence was not permitted at trial to exonerate the defendants. This was the entire thrust of the movie which you clearly missed.
The problem with you conspiracy loons is that it's clear you don't care about facts.
Thank you for your accurate post. As I wrote earlier, I was alive then & following everything on the news, and it was just as you describe it.
share"No political motivation" to against his boss? Wow! A lot of people will do anything to attack his boss, even lie!
Just because a boss orders someone to do something, a employee will do everything to prove boss is right? Do you ever work for a corporation? This is the most naive thing I ever heard.
Ramsey Clark was noted for his integrity, even by his political enemies. You obviously weren't alive then, and so you can have no conception of the zeitgeist then.
shareBecause someone has "integrity", he will never lie or do wrong? That is what I call: "naive."
shareThere never was any evidence of Clark having lied in this case. You can go on believing whatever you want, but it won't change the truth.
End of discussion.
There never was any evidence of Clark told the truth in this case. You can go on believing whatever you want, but it won't change the truth.
End of discussion.
lol. What do you mean there was no evidence? An entire federal investigation was launched and came to this determination. Investigations require evidence. You're acting like the outcome of a federal investigation is entirely dependent on Clark's word instead of based on the evidence uncovered in the investigation.
Again, the problem with you conspiracy loons is how little you regard you have for empirical facts. That's why you can so easily dismiss the conclusions of a federal investigation as politically motivated with zero evidence to support your claims and contrary to everything we know about Clark's integrity and character.
Then what is the "evidence"? Please show to everyone.
shareYou must not be aware that statements made under oath by a US Attorney General of the outcome of a federal investigation he oversaw on penalty of perjury is considered "evidence" by our courts. Just like sworn affidavits admitted by a court is considered "evidence".
Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence that he is lying if you seek to discredit the evidence. This is how our justice system works. Sworn testimony is considered "evidence".
You just prove you're naive, I answer this before: "it's scientific prove witnesses have very low reliability."
shareYou're further confirming you have no idea what you're talking about by providing a quote that does not apply here. That quote in context refers to a passive witness to a crime. Yes, 3rd party observers to a crime often will have low reliability.
That doesn't apply to an Attorney General testifying to the outcome of an investigation he oversaw under penalty of perjury. Would you have 'low reliability' in testifying in court to your job responsibilities under penalty of perjury?
You're really grasping for straws.
Wow! Attorney General will never lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And never wrong to his investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, if an attorney general is lying under oath you need to provide evidence to support your claim. You've provided none. That's why you're incoherent.
But you beat your wife right?
I posted this before, what is his evidence.
sharePeople beat their wives. Is that evidence that you beat your wife? By your logic yes. You're a wife beater.
shareWhat?
shareYou beat your wife. My accusation holds at least as much weight as you accusing an AG of Clark's immaculate reputation of lying under oath with no plausible motive and no evidence.
Without knowing more about you I'd say my accusation holds more weight since I have no idea about your personal rep for integrity whereas Clark's personal integrity was well known.
I just ask what is his evidence.
shareNo you're making an allegation that he is lying and breaking the law with a bogus investigation. That requires evidence on your part. His testimony under oath is considered by law to be evidence.
shareI said, what is his evidence to his words.
You are the clowns here, just because someone under oath, you believe.
No that's not what I said. I said sworn testimony submitted by law enforcement officer about the conclusions of his own investigation on penalty of perjury is considered evidence. This is a fact. If you disagree then you're disagreeing with the law and our justice system.
Your allegation is that he is lying and breaking the law and therefore his testimony is not supported by any known facts. Therefore you have no credibility.
Do I said he lie? I think I say I don't believe his words, unless shown evidence.
shareBut again, the only evidence that you accept is video evidence. And on that front we have video evidence of police attacking protesters, yet you refuse to accept that is prima facie evidence of police inciting the riot. Why when that's what your "evidence" shows? Answering "well it depends who started it" only shows that you believe video evidence itself is inconclusive.
So how do you expect to establish who started it when video evidence only shows cops beating protesters? You sound like a mighty giant hypocrite.
Videos only show riot is already on. Where is the video who start first.
shareLike I asked already, how can you even be sure if a video truly captures everything from the start or not without sworn testimony to provide context?
shareLike I said already, do you watch BLM video on youtube.
shareI can tell you're not very bright that you think a video can capture an entire incident and determine who started it when you have no idea what happened before the recorder started recording.
shareWow! so you rather believe someone said under oath!!!!!!!!!
shareOver your baseless accusations with no supporting evidence that he's lying? Yes, every day of the week. A person under oath has strong incentive not to lie and face a perjury charge. A man of Clark's reputation even more so.
You lack basic credibility by failing to even come up with a plausible motive.
So if a video show a man rapes a women , but Clark is under oath say it's not, you will believe Clark's words over a video show a man raping a woman.
shareOnce again you're demonstrating your stupidity by not realizing that OF COURSE material video evidence trumps sworn testimony but you have NOT PROVIDED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE THAT CLARK IS LYING. God you're slow.
shareAGAIN: Do I said he lie? I think I say I don't believe his words, unless shown evidence.
shareAre you really that stupid that you don't even realize that saying you don't believe his words defacto means that you think he's lying? There is no middle ground here chump.
share"I don't know he's telling the truth or not." this is not accuse someone lying.
You're lying because these are your exact words I'm cutting and pasting:
"I think I say I don't believe his words"
That means you think he's lying. There's no middle ground chump. You're a proven liar and have less crediblity than Clark every day of the week and 4 times on Sunday.
Doesn't believe someone's words isn't say someone lying.
shareIt's hilarious watching you try to lie about what you said. All it does is prove you're a liar when anyone can just scroll up to see what you really said and see that you lied.
shareYes, people have IQ above 80 know what is difference between "you're lying" and
"I don't believe what you said."
Which is why you have an IQ below 80 because you don't understand that if you don't believe what Clark said under oath it means you think he's lying. This is really basic stuff slow boy.
shareFor Christ's sake, how dumb you're?
It's not the same thing!
Maybe he really believe what he said, that is not lying!
How could he really believe what his own investigation concluded if it wasn't true slow boy? God you're an idiot. Anyone reading your stupid replies can see how dumb you are.
shareDo you even go to college?
There are a lot of theory to explain one thing, some scholars believe one, some don't, it isn't call someone lying!
You dumb fuck.
LoL! You're trying way too hard to pretend like you're educated when you try to cite a theory and can't even attach a name to the theory you're describing. Not just that, but your theory is just nonsensical. You're really not fooling anyone. If you went to college you would understand the logic behind why courts admit sworn affidavits as evidence. It's obvious you're just too stupid and uneducated to understand.
shareYou dumb, you just prove you're uneducated, I said "a lot of theory," in science field, it's norm.
Einstein doesn't believe Quantum Theory, it isn't mean he think they are lying!
You uneducated dumb.
You dumb, you just prove you're uneducated when you can't even name the theory you're trying to describe. HOEHOEHROAHEHOHEAHEOE. Anyone can see how dumb you are for thinking Clark doesn't even know the conclusion of his own investigation. WAHAHAHAHHA!
shareI just name the fucking theory!
You really have reading problem.
Einstein didn't come up with Quantum theory you illiterate, uneducated buffoon.
shareYou've seriously reading problem, I said he doesn't believe it.
shareSo what does that have to do with Clark? God you're an insane idiot.
shareYou dumb, because you said: if you say you don't believe it, it's equal to call someone lying.
shareLOL. You're making things up again. Try again. That's not what I said.
shareif you don't believe what Clark said under oath it means you think he's lying.
shareYup! You learned how to cut and paste. And anyone can recognize what I said is true. Your ridiculous Einstein example talking about Quantum Theory doesn't even make sense. Clark was not advocating theory. He was testifying to what he found in his own investigation on who incited a riot. This is not theoretical physics you hairbrained chimp. It's a law enforcement investigation. You are such a silly simp.
shareBreaking news: Richard Feynman doesn't believe string theory, he accuses those believe it are liars!
shareLoL. I'll take your obvious gaslighting about Feynman as your indirect concession that you know you've lost. I'm done reading your gibberish replies, have a nice life. But seriously, you should have stayed in school.
shareBreaking news: New Law Got Pass, If Someone Say Something, You Don't Believe It, You Are Aqual To Accuse That Man A Liar!
From now on, we must believe what people say.
When someone gives their opinion, then says "end of discussion", that's usually a sign they probably don't know what they're talking about. The protesters threw bricks, rocks, spiked golf balls, bottles, and other weapons that it is unlikely they just happened to find lying around the streets and parks of Chicago and spontaneously picked up. They arrived armed, which proves they premeditated violence. But wait--before you type your standard dismissal "you weren't alive then", actually I was alive and full-grown. But I wasn't a hippie, so my sympathy for the violent protesters is nonexistent.
Regardless of the conclusion of any "official report", or how may times anybody cites it, there is plenty of evidence the protesters went there looking to start trouble. The discussion will never be over.
They are the victims of Dunning-Kruger effect, they have fix minds, just want to believe what they imagine. You're wasting time to teach them the truth.
sharelol. Your logic is utterly incoherent. Yes, most people do want to make their boss happy because most people want to keep their jobs, especially when their boss is the one who handpicked them for the job.
Your claim that an employee would go out of there way to be insubordinate to their boss to get themselves fired is utterly ridiculous. Do you even listen to yourself?
Do you live in USA? Do you know how much officials against Trump?
Your "utterly ridiculous" happened a lot in past 4 years!
Whataboutism is a technique of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
Trump does this all the time and you're doing the exact same thing. I'm talking about Ramsey Clark and LBJ, not Trump or anyone else. Completely different circumstances.
Like I said, Clark was handpicked by LBJ to be his AG. There is no plausible motivation for him to want to defy his boss and determine the outcome of a federal investigation that would place the responsibility for the riots on the Chicago police unless it was what actually happened, your completely unhinged and incoherent speculation notwithstanding. Whatever "deep state" actors you think are in pursuit of Trump, they certainly weren't the "best people" handpicked by him. He has a habit of picking loyalists, and those he deems insufficiently loyal like Jeff Sessions because he chose to do the right thing and recuse himself from oversight of a special counsel investigation where he was one of the individuals being probed, Trump fires.
Actually Jeff Sessions is a great example here in the similarities to Clark that proves you wrong. Like Clark, he chose to defy his boss to do the right thing. There is no plausible motivation for his decision to recuse outside of his desire to follow Justice Department guidelines as he should as the top law enforcement officer of the United States.
An eloquent & factual response, presenting history as it happened, not as some might wish it to have happened. Well done!
shareThis is what I call "naive", because someone got handpicked, he will never do anything to boss?
shareNo, what makes you incoherent is that you've failed to provide any evidence to support your fantastical allegation that an AG of Clark's known and reputed integrity broke the law by manufacturing the outcome of a federal investigation he was in charge of overseeing to spite his boss.
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I could accuse you of beating your wife. Whether that accusation is even remotely plausible depends on evidence that you have failed to provide. You're the one making the accusation that Clark would act completely out of character as the top law enforcement officer of the United States and break the law, the onus is on you to prove it. Idle speculation that you beat your wife is not evidence that my accusation should be considered plausible.
I answer this before: "Who give that "testimony"? In a era without surveillance cameras on streets, without digital camera in everyone's hand, how is that possible to determine which side start first? "
You're the problem in jury this days, believe everything witness say without evidence.
Using your logic, there shouldn't be a justice system at all prior to ubiquitous surveillance technology since according to you even the sworn testimony of the top law enforcement officer in the country on the outcome of his own investigation is not "evidence".
Have you even bothered to consider what would be acceptable "evidence" to you? It would all have come in the form of sworn testimony if not by him then by his underlings conducting an investigation which would involve extracting testimony from both protesters and police to determine who was telling the truth.
But in your mind, sworn testimony is not "evidence". In other words, there is no conceivable outcome that could meet your impossible standard of evidence. That makes you incoherent.
There are already camera in those days, did you see History vs Hollywood picture? A person hold a weapon to against police.
shareThen there's plenty of evidence of police beating protesters caught on camera. Why are you deliberately ignoring that evidence?
shareThe point is who start first.
Ah, so in order to get proper context they'd need sworn testimony from participants on who started it, but as you keep repeating that's not acceptable evidence to you.
You're making my point that there's no threshold of evidence that could meet your impossible standard to prove what happened.
DO YOU READ WHAT I SAID: There are already camera in those days.
shareThen why are you deliberately ignoring the video evidence of police beating protesters?
You have a habit of ignoring evidence that is inconvenient to your conclusion.
DO YOU READ WHAT I SAID: The point is who start first.
shareBut according to you all we can reliably go by is video evidence since sworn testimony is unreliable.
That means all we have evidence of is police charging and beating protesters. So why aren't you saying police must be guilty since that's what the only reliable evidence that we have reveals? You're being awfully hypocritical.
What? Who start first MUST rely on testimony?
shareHow do you expect to establish who started it first when there are numerous incidents that happen non concurrently?
shareDo you watch youtube how many BLM got attacked by police?
shareYou're once again proving my point that you have no idea what you're even talking about.
There were no BLM in the 1968 Chicago convention protests. BLM is a modern activist group. Back then the black activists portrayed in the movie were members of the Black Panthers. That you would confuse BLM with Black Panthers reveals you're not even thinking of the right decade.
I'm reply to your "How do you expect to establish who started it first"
shareAnd you're failing. You're the one accusing the protesters of inciting when all we have is video evidence of cops beating protesters to a pulp. Therefore based on your idea of "evidence", it constitutes the cops are guilty. You're the one idly speculating the protesters started it with no evidence to support your claim.
shareThe diff is BLM show the whole thing, protesters do nothing wrong.
The 7 case didn't show the whole thing.
Again BLM wasn't even a movement until 2013, proving once again that you don't even have a factual grasp of events in the right decade.
shareFor christ's sake, how dumb you are?
I bring out BLM, because you said: "How do you expect to establish who started it first."
So I show you it can be done, on Youtube! Police attack BLM!
The question is how dumb are YOU to think a video alone can capture who started it? How do you know whether just before the video started rolling cops hadn't attacked a BLM protester? Are you really this stupid?
shareI didn't said BLM attack first, I said video show police attack first!
Do you've reading problem?
Ok, but it's immaterial who attacked who on video when that doesn't necessarily capture an entire incident. We can only know conclusively by accompanying testimony which you've already ruled out of hand as unreliable. That is my point. So then why are you bringing up an incident in a different decade from the riot we were talking about? There was clearly no video evidence of anything but cops attacking protesters in 1968. So going by your standard of "evidence" there can be no determination of who is at fault. Again, our courts and system of justice would disagree with you as to what constitutes evidence.
shareThe problem with testimony is protesters outnumber police, of course it will show what protesters want.
I'm curios any video show the whole protest.
Once again your simple mind prevents you from understanding what an investigation involves. You seem to think it's just about getting testimony from both sides and tallying up how many said what and whichever side has more wins the investigation.
You're only revealing how simple minded you are. No, it's about comparing testimony to determine which testimony IS CONSISTENT. Did Chicago police get the order from above to attack protesters and incite the riot? Some very likely testified under oath that they did. Or else if it was just the word of police against protesters then a fair investigation would not have found conclusively that the police incited the riot because it would be just "he said she said". You're very dense to not be aware of this.
Testimony and Investigation IS NOT THE SAME!
I question testimony, because you keep saying testimony, you didn't say investigation.
Sworn testimony is considered evidence in an investigation by the court of law. How many times do I have to repeat this fact to you slow boy?
shareIf a testimony is not back up by evidence, and you believe it, then we are know who is "slow".
shareOnce again you have no idea what you're talking about. Sworn testimony admitted by a court is considered evidence in an investigation if it's deemed credible. But sworn testimony by a law enforcement officer is ACCEPTED as evidence in a court of law until proven otherwise. You need to bush up on your knowledge of the law. Because your stupidity is interfering.
shareIf that is you definition of truth and evidence, then you show people what is stupidity.
shareFor the 10th time, I'm describing the US Justice System's standard of evidence. All you're doing is exhibiting your low IQ by calling me stupid for telling you this. Testimony is considered evidence by the court of law unless you can prove otherwise. The fact that you're not aware of this proves you are the stupid one.
shareIf that is you definition of truth and evidence, then you show people what is stupidity.
shareExcept that's not what I said, proving your lack of reading comprehension.
share"Testimony is considered evidence"
Yes, people know who has reading problem.
Yep. It's you. I cite the law. You cite your imagination.
sharePeople can scroll and search see how you blindly believe testimony.
shareTestimony of a man with a reputation for integrity like Clark? Yes. But that's not 'blindly'. So wrong again clarence. Don't you get tired of always being wrong? (that's a rhetorical question, I know you love getting clowned, that's why you keep coming back for more.)
shareYou should watch a doc "The Innocence Files."
You're the problem in jury today, they easily believe some experts' testimony.
Wrong again. Clark was not some random no name expert. He was the Attorney General for the United States with a career reputation for conducting himself with integrity responding to a deposition and testifying to the conclusion of his own investigation. Big difference. It's obvious how ignorant you are that you've never heard of Clark and think he's just some no name court expert. It really exposes your simple mind. You should have stayed in school.
shareThat is what I call problem, jury blindly believe some witness, because they are so noble.
Just like you blindly believe Clark.
Wrong again, Clark isn't just "some witness". He's only "some witness" to YOU because you're ignorant.
shareBecause he so big, so noble, he transcend to another level, we have to listen what he say.
I'm talking to God.
No, because the "expert witness" you're describing testifying to a jury is not even in the SAME CATEGORY of witness Clark is. Clark is a first person witness testifying to the conclusion of his own investigation under penalty of perjury and personal rep. The "expert witness" in the court trials you're pointing to are experts in their field testying to THEIR OPINION on a criminal matter, some of which is subjective and can sometimes be wrong. That is an entirely different type of witness. The fact you don't understand the difference of why it's not even comparable literally proves how stupid you are.
The analogy would be like if you were called to testify as a witness under penalty of perjury to what you do in your OWN JOB assuming you have one. What is the likelihood that you would not be familiar with the details of your own job and not testify accurately? That is what you are alleging of Clark. It's absurd.
But I can understand why you would think that if you either don't have a job or are so incompetent in your job that you would not understand basic details and testify inaccurately. But your lack of understanding is from your own incompetence. Meanwhile, Clark was HIGHLY competent. That's why he was handpicked by LBJ to be his AG.
So, in short: Clark is never wrong. Clark is always right.
shareYou're doing what losers do when they know they're defeated, you're claiming I said things that I never said.
sharePeople can scroll up can see what you said: "not even in the SAME CATEGORY of witness Clark is."
shareYes and anyone intelligent reading what I said will recognize I"m right. Just because it flew above your head doesn't mean I didn't just clown you by explaining how you're wrong.
shareuser111, just look at sonans' posting history, as I just did, and you'll see how limited & inch-deep his worldview is. I almost feel sorry for him now. Almost.
shareYou're right. I realize arguing with him is a lost cause. I just treat running circles around him to be low grade entertainment at this point. :\
shareUnderstood. He's not the only such poster here, as I'm sure you've already noticed. My response to one of them just below garnered the same sort of "thinking" — either unwilling or enable to engage in intelligent, adult discussion. I'd shake my head sadly, but they're an ominous trend for society.
shareYeah IMO the nutjob below wasn't even worthy of a response since it seemed clear from his OP just how far gone his mind is.
I find arguing with sonas at least minimally entertaining because of his repeated failed attempts to at least try and argue coherently. It's sort of amusing to point out why he's not making sense using his very own arguments and words against him. But I'm sure I'll get bored at some point, probably soon.
Taking your wife-beating example, for instance, he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy. And of course he insists on seeing the past through the present, and just can't get beyond that.
You're right, his own posts are the best argument against his argument.
Or he beats his wife. :0
shareYour logic here is inconsistent. You don’t trust the official verdict that it was the police’s fault because the government said so, but this movie depicts the very true reality that the government was trying to pin the blame on the Chicago 7. Which government officials shouldn’t you trust? The police, the prosecution, the judge that tried to absolve themselves of wrongdoing or the government officials that admitted the other government officials were in the wrong?
How do you know WMDs were a lie? Oh that’s right because another government agency said there wasn’t despite previous government officials saying there was.
Those commies deserved to be charged with treason and sent to Russia.
shareThe protesters were native-born American citizens exercising their rights as American citizens. And since they didn't come from Russia, how could they be "sent back" there?
shareThey were pinko communists. You don’t like it here? Leave!
shareThey were patriots opposing an illegal & immoral war, as well as the countless injustices embedded in American society.
shareOh, please! The Chicago 7 and those like them are no better than Antifa or BLM and deserved to be put to sleep like the animals they are.
shareWere you alive then? I was, and watched it all unfold live on TV. The official government investigation concluded that the violence was the result of a police riot.
Incidentally, Dave Dellinger of the Chicago 7 was a lifelong pacifist & never engaged in violence. And he wasn't the only one with similarly strong moral values, which impelled them to speak truth to power.
Blue Lives Matter. Fuck the liberals.
share"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder." -Richard J. Daley, mayor of Chicago in 1968
share