MAGA teen bused in from a Catholic school harasses Indigenous People's marcher. Vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from L Lin Wood, Sandmann's attorney.

In part:

In the coming weeks, we will be carefully reviewing all of the false accusations and threats made against Nick. We fully expect that a multitude of civil lawsuits will be filed and aggressively pursued. We recognize that justice for Nick will not be achieved quickly, but we are dedicated to achieving it for this young man regardless of time or expense.

At this time, Nick, his family and their lawyers will not be engaging in media interviews. There is work to be done. If any member of the public has information, they believe is helpful to Nick, that information can be communicated to us by email to [e-mail].

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-of-attorneys-l-lin-wood-and-todd-mcmurtry-on-behalf-of-nick-sandmann-and-his-family-300784506.html

I hope that his attorneys are successfull.

Here, here! See my response just after yours, at 6:33.

Of course you do. Play the victim. Reward the bad behavior.

Don't feed the troll, folks!
The people who think that kids should be targets of abuse and harassment can't be reasoned with.

Threats are one thing. Let the police handle those.

But why reinforce to this kid that he can act like a DB and lie (quiet prayer)?

First, the Covington boys didn't act poorly.
A Black hate group is haranguing them.
A group of an American Indian activist drumers looking to create an incident tries to provoke them by pushing them back up the stairs of the Lincoln Monument.
And this white kid did nothing except smirk.

Second, the left thinks nothing of a Native American adult change HIS narrative of WHAT HE DID everytime that video showed the prior version was a lie. In contrast, when the white KID says what he was thinking, people call him a liar without any possible proof.

Yes, it is possible to pray AND smirk.
Every kid who ever farted loudly in Church,
and everyone within hearing distance, knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from L Lin Wood, Sandmann's attorney.

In part:

In the coming weeks, we will be carefully reviewing all of the false accusations and threats made against Nick. We fully expect that a multitude of civil lawsuits will be filed and aggressively pursued. We recognize that justice for Nick will not be achieved quickly, but we are dedicated to achieving it for this young man regardless of time or expense.

At this time, Nick, his family and their lawyers will not be engaging in media interviews. There is work to be done. If any member of the public has information, they believe is helpful to Nick, that information can be communicated to us by email to [e-mail].

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-of-attorneys-l-lin-wood-and-todd-mcmurtry-on-behalf-of-nick-sandmann-and-his-family-300784506.html

I hope that his attorneys are successfull.

Here, here! See my response just after yours, at 6:33.

Of course you do. Play the victim. Reward the bad behavior.

Don't feed the troll, folks!
The people who think that kids should be targets of abuse and harassment can't be reasoned with.

Threats are one thing. Let the police handle those.

But why reinforce to this kid that he can act like a DB and lie (quiet prayer)?

First, the Covington boys didn't act poorly.
A Black hate group is haranguing them.
A group of an American Indian activist drumers looking to create an incident tries to provoke them by pushing them back up the stairs of the Lincoln Monument.
And this white kid did nothing except smirk.

Second, the left thinks nothing of a Native American adult change HIS narrative of WHAT HE DID everytime that video showed the prior version was a lie. In contrast, when the white KID says what he was thinking, people call him a liar without any possible proof.

Yes, it is possible to pray AND smirk.
Every kid who ever farted loudly in Church,
and everyone within hearing distance, knows this.

The BHIs were terrible.
The boys still behaved poorly.

Where were the chaperones? Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms. Poor judgment and negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You've made a mistake by repeating your post.
It's like the "can I get change, two 20's for a 10?" scam, it only works if your not paying attention.

So, I'm calling BS on this. You failed at gaslighting the kids, now you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.

I'll grant that this is a very well crafted and polite lie; it's short, punchy, succinct, and pushes all the buttons for the moderate to far left.
But when I read what you just wrote, it falls apart, because it's well played, but false.


A) Initial attempts to pin the blame on the kids worked, but only because the video was edited AND nobody knew that Nathan Phillips was a professional protester and serial victim-of-white-oppression. The initial gaslighting the kids by editing the video to support Nathan's tearful TV interview that THEY SWARMED HIM, WORKED.
But, once Phillips version of the event was shown to be a lie, the desired narrative began to crumble.


B) Now that gaslighting the kids has failed, you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.
You ask a question, give an answer, then make a conclusion.
1) where are the chaperones, 2) they were busy planning ahead for publicity, 3) they, therefore, failed to act on behalf of the children

C) I think it's cowardly to now claim, without any evidence, and knowing that it's false, imply that the chaperones are the ones
who wanted this to escalate in order to get publicity. I think you and everyone reading this knows that blaming the chaperones as the people seeking publicity while this happened is a bald-faced lie.

That being said, it's a reasonably good strategy
To summarize, you're claiming the chaperones, weren't doing their job because they were coordinating excuses and looking for publicity.
You conclude that the chaperones used the kids to advance their agenda and any harm to the kids from liberal doxxing and death-threats,
is, therefore, the fault of the Catholic chaperones who failed to anticipate that Nathan Phillips would use the kids for his own publicity.

Sorry, although you initially succeeded in gaslighting the kids because Nathan Phillips lied about the facts on national TV; you're not going to succeed in gaslighting the chaperones by claiming that THEY were at fault and THEY were the ones scheming to make this a media circus.

The priest and chaperones were there to protect the kids and make sure the kids had a wonderful day.
The BHI and Nathan Phillips were there to ruin someone else's day.
Your attempt to portray the ONLY people who cared about the kids as PR vultures is repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You've made a mistake by repeating your post.
It's like the "can I get change, two 20's for a 10?" scam, it only works if your not paying attention.

So, I'm calling BS on this. You failed at gaslighting the kids, now you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.

I'll grant that this is a very well crafted and polite lie; it's short, punchy, succinct, and pushes all the buttons for the moderate to far left.
But when I read what you just wrote, it falls apart, because it's well played, but false.


A) Initial attempts to pin the blame on the kids worked, but only because the video was edited AND nobody knew that Nathan Phillips was a professional protester and serial victim-of-white-oppression. The initial gaslighting the kids by editing the video to support Nathan's tearful TV interview that THEY SWARMED HIM, WORKED.
But, once Phillips version of the event was shown to be a lie, the desired narrative began to crumble.


B) Now that gaslighting the kids has failed, you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.
You ask a question, give an answer, then make a conclusion.
1) where are the chaperones, 2) they were busy planning ahead for publicity, 3) they, therefore, failed to act on behalf of the children

C) I think it's cowardly to now claim, without any evidence, and knowing that it's false, imply that the chaperones are the ones
who wanted this to escalate in order to get publicity. I think you and everyone reading this knows that blaming the chaperones as the people seeking publicity while this happened is a bald-faced lie.

That being said, it's a reasonably good strategy
To summarize, you're claiming the chaperones, weren't doing their job because they were coordinating excuses and looking for publicity.
You conclude that the chaperones used the kids to advance their agenda and any harm to the kids from liberal doxxing and death-threats,
is, therefore, the fault of the Catholic chaperones who failed to anticipate that Nathan Phillips would use the kids for his own publicity.

Sorry, although you initially succeeded in gaslighting the kids because Nathan Phillips lied about the facts on national TV; you're not going to succeed in gaslighting the chaperones by claiming that THEY were at fault and THEY were the ones scheming to make this a media circus.

The priest and chaperones were there to protect the kids and make sure the kids had a wonderful day.
The BHI and Nathan Phillips were there to ruin someone else's day.
Your attempt to portray the ONLY people who cared about the kids as PR vultures is repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You've made a mistake by repeating your post.
It's like the "can I get change, two 20's for a 10?" scam, it only works if your not paying attention.

So, I'm calling BS on this. You failed at gaslighting the kids, now you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.

I'll grant that this is a very well crafted and polite lie; it's short, punchy, succinct, and pushes all the buttons for the moderate to far left.
But when I read what you just wrote, it falls apart, because it's well played, but false.


A) Initial attempts to pin the blame on the kids worked, but only because the video was edited AND nobody knew that Nathan Phillips was a professional protester and serial victim-of-white-oppression. The initial gaslighting the kids by editing the video to support Nathan's tearful TV interview that THEY SWARMED HIM, WORKED.
But, once Phillips version of the event was shown to be a lie, the desired narrative began to crumble.


B) Now that gaslighting the kids has failed, you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.
You ask a question, give an answer, then make a conclusion.
1) where are the chaperones, 2) they were busy planning ahead for publicity, 3) they, therefore, failed to act on behalf of the children

C) I think it's cowardly to now claim, without any evidence, and knowing that it's false, imply that the chaperones are the ones
who wanted this to escalate in order to get publicity. I think you and everyone reading this knows that blaming the chaperones as the people seeking publicity while this happened is a bald-faced lie.

That being said, it's a reasonably good strategy
To summarize, you're claiming the chaperones, weren't doing their job because they were coordinating excuses and looking for publicity.
You conclude that the chaperones used the kids to advance their agenda and any harm to the kids from liberal doxxing and death-threats,
is, therefore, the fault of the Catholic chaperones who failed to anticipate that Nathan Phillips would use the kids for his own publicity.

Sorry, although you initially succeeded in gaslighting the kids because Nathan Phillips lied about the facts on national TV; you're not going to succeed in gaslighting the chaperones by claiming that THEY were at fault and THEY were the ones scheming to make this a media circus.

The priest and chaperones were there to protect the kids and make sure the kids had a wonderful day.
The BHI and Nathan Phillips were there to ruin someone else's day.
Your attempt to portray the ONLY people who cared about the kids as PR vultures is repulsive.

You are full of shit. I didn’t gaslight the kids. I’ve always thought they behaved poorly but the adults were to blame.

Where did I say anything about chaperones scheming for publicity or implied they are PR vultures? You are just making up random shit now to support some delusional point of yours. Lying nutjob.

Go take your meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You've made a mistake by repeating your post.
It's like the "can I get change, two 20's for a 10?" scam, it only works if your not paying attention.

So, I'm calling BS on this. You failed at gaslighting the kids, now you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.

I'll grant that this is a very well crafted and polite lie; it's short, punchy, succinct, and pushes all the buttons for the moderate to far left.
But when I read what you just wrote, it falls apart, because it's well played, but false.


A) Initial attempts to pin the blame on the kids worked, but only because the video was edited AND nobody knew that Nathan Phillips was a professional protester and serial victim-of-white-oppression. The initial gaslighting the kids by editing the video to support Nathan's tearful TV interview that THEY SWARMED HIM, WORKED.
But, once Phillips version of the event was shown to be a lie, the desired narrative began to crumble.


B) Now that gaslighting the kids has failed, you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.
You ask a question, give an answer, then make a conclusion.
1) where are the chaperones, 2) they were busy planning ahead for publicity, 3) they, therefore, failed to act on behalf of the children

C) I think it's cowardly to now claim, without any evidence, and knowing that it's false, imply that the chaperones are the ones
who wanted this to escalate in order to get publicity. I think you and everyone reading this knows that blaming the chaperones as the people seeking publicity while this happened is a bald-faced lie.

That being said, it's a reasonably good strategy
To summarize, you're claiming the chaperones, weren't doing their job because they were coordinating excuses and looking for publicity.
You conclude that the chaperones used the kids to advance their agenda and any harm to the kids from liberal doxxing and death-threats,
is, therefore, the fault of the Catholic chaperones who failed to anticipate that Nathan Phillips would use the kids for his own publicity.

Sorry, although you initially succeeded in gaslighting the kids because Nathan Phillips lied about the facts on national TV; you're not going to succeed in gaslighting the chaperones by claiming that THEY were at fault and THEY were the ones scheming to make this a media circus.

The priest and chaperones were there to protect the kids and make sure the kids had a wonderful day.
The BHI and Nathan Phillips were there to ruin someone else's day.
Your attempt to portray the ONLY people who cared about the kids as PR vultures is repulsive.

You are full of shit. I didn’t gaslight the kids. I’ve always thought they behaved poorly but the adults were to blame.

Where did I say anything about chaperones scheming for publicity or implied they are PR vultures? You are just making up random shit now to support some delusional point of yours. Lying nutjob.

Go take your meds.

DP.

"Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms."

You have been called out.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it unreasonable to wish to find some kind of remediation for the events.

The kids got death threads.
Kids that werent' there, but resembled the kid in the hat got death threats.
The school was attacked.
People were maligned--called racists,etc, by reputable media elites.

Even after it was determined that the "noble Native American" is a fraud and the instigator--along with the Black Hebrews--the kids were blamed.
The chaperones were also blamed. Remember, this was an event that happened and escalated quickly. They were handling the situation with the Black Hebrews by turning away when Phillips saw his opportunity to step in--and make things worse.

Even today, Robin Givhan, in WAPO is calling them racists because they wore MAGA hats. Capehart, yesterday in WAPO, did the same thing.

It was a very bad situation--that would have been forgotten had a twitterer not posted and reposted a very brief video. The media elites jumped on because it fit their own personal narrative. Unfortunately, instead of correcting their mistake, the media has doubled down and still blames the boy--for wearing a hat.

No difference in this and blaming an AA kid for wearing a hoodie.

The hat is not racist. Just because you see it that way, does not make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You are full of shit. I didn’t gaslight the kids. I’ve always thought they behaved poorly but the adults were to blame.
Where did I say anything about chaperones scheming for publicity or implied they are PR vultures? You are just making up random shit now to support some delusional point of yours. Lying nutjob.
Go take your meds.

I didn’t gaslight the kids.

Ok, you're technically correct there.
Nathan Phillips gaslighted the kids by retroactively changing the facts, and claiming they-surrounded-him.

Where did I say anything about chaperones scheming for publicity

By suggesting that they showed poor judgment by calling PR firms to arrange publicity, instead of supervising the kids while they were at the Lincoln Memorial.

Where were the chaperones? Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms. Poor judgment and negligent.


Rearranged that to a declarative sentence and it says:
The chaperones were[i] busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms, that shows [i]poor judgment and negligence.

or implied they are PR vultures?

You indicated the chaperones were negligent, they were calling PR firms instead of paying attention to the kids.

[Anonymous]

The chaperones were not the problem. You are still trying to deflect.

[Anonymous]

I hope the kids’ lawyers sue the crap out of people

[Anonymous]

A great read by Andrew Sullivan...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/andrew-sullivan-the-abyss-of-hate-versus-hate.html

From the article:

To put it bluntly: They were 16-year-olds subjected to verbal racist assault by grown men; and then the kids were accused of being bigots. It just beggars belief that the same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the kids in the face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Where were the chaperones?
Busy working out excuses for their kids and calling PR firms.
Poor judgment and negligent.

You've made a mistake by repeating your post.
It's like the "can I get change, two 20's for a 10?" scam, it only works if your not paying attention.

So, I'm calling BS on this. You failed at gaslighting the kids, now you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.

I'll grant that this is a very well crafted and polite lie; it's short, punchy, succinct, and pushes all the buttons for the moderate to far left.
But when I read what you just wrote, it falls apart, because it's well played, but false.


A) Initial attempts to pin the blame on the kids worked, but only because the video was edited AND nobody knew that Nathan Phillips was a professional protester and serial victim-of-white-oppression. The initial gaslighting the kids by editing the video to support Nathan's tearful TV interview that THEY SWARMED HIM, WORKED.
But, once Phillips version of the event was shown to be a lie, the desired narrative began to crumble.


B) Now that gaslighting the kids has failed, you're trying to gaslight the chaperones.
You ask a question, give an answer, then make a conclusion.
1) where are the chaperones, 2) they were busy planning ahead for publicity, 3) they, therefore, failed to act on behalf of the children

C) I think it's cowardly to now claim, without any evidence, and knowing that it's false, imply that the chaperones are the ones
who wanted this to escalate in order to get publicity. I think you and everyone reading this knows that blaming the chaperones as the people seeking publicity while this happened is a bald-faced lie.

That being said, it's a reasonably good strategy
To summarize, you're claiming the chaperones, weren't doing their job because they were coordinating excuses and looking for publicity.
You conclude that the chaperones used the kids to advance their agenda and any harm to the kids from liberal doxxing and death-threats,
is, therefore, the fault of the Catholic chaperones who failed to anticipate that Nathan Phillips would use the kids for his own publicity.

Sorry, although you initially succeeded in gaslighting the kids because Nathan Phillips lied about the facts on national TV; you're not going to succeed in gaslighting the chaperones by claiming that THEY were at fault and THEY were the ones scheming to make this a media circus.

The priest and chaperones were there to protect the kids and make sure the kids had a wonderful day.
The BHI and Nathan Phillips were there to ruin someone else's day.
Your attempt to portray the ONLY people who cared about the kids as PR vultures is repulsive.

Well said. I can't even believe there are those still trying to pin something non-existent on these boys. And I'm pro-choice - I would never attend a pro-life march. But these kids did nothing. They were minding their business when Phillips decided to place himself at the center of their group, for no apparent reason. Bizarre. Of course, they are white, so I can see why liberals are doing their level best to blame them for *something*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A great read by Andrew Sullivan...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/andrew-sullivan-the-abyss-of-hate-versus-hate.html

From the article:

To put it bluntly: They were 16-year-olds subjected to verbal racist assault by grown men; and then the kids were accused of being bigots. It just beggars belief that the same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the kids in the face.

THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from L Lin Wood, Sandmann's attorney.

In part:

In the coming weeks, we will be carefully reviewing all of the false accusations and threats made against Nick. We fully expect that a multitude of civil lawsuits will be filed and aggressively pursued. We recognize that justice for Nick will not be achieved quickly, but we are dedicated to achieving it for this young man regardless of time or expense.

At this time, Nick, his family and their lawyers will not be engaging in media interviews. There is work to be done. If any member of the public has information, they believe is helpful to Nick, that information can be communicated to us by email to [e-mail].

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-of-attorneys-l-lin-wood-and-todd-mcmurtry-on-behalf-of-nick-sandmann-and-his-family-300784506.html

I hope that his attorneys are successfull.

Here, here! See my response just after yours, at 6:33.

Of course you do. Play the victim. Reward the bad behavior.

Don't feed the troll, folks!
The people who think that kids should be targets of abuse and harassment can't be reasoned with.

Threats are one thing. Let the police handle those.

But why reinforce to this kid that he can act like a DB and lie (quiet prayer)?

First, the Covington boys didn't act poorly.
A Black hate group is haranguing them.
A group of an American Indian activist drumers looking to create an incident tries to provoke them by pushing them back up the stairs of the Lincoln Monument.
And this white kid did nothing except smirk.

Second, the left thinks nothing of a Native American adult change HIS narrative of WHAT HE DID everytime that video showed the prior version was a lie. In contrast, when the white KID says what he was thinking, people call him a liar without any possible proof.

Yes, it is possible to pray AND smirk.
Every kid who ever farted loudly in Church,
and everyone within hearing distance, knows this.

Yep. The kid committed a facecrime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great read by Andrew Sullivan...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/andrew-sullivan-the-abyss-of-hate-versus-hate.html

From the article:

To put it bluntly: They were 16-year-olds subjected to verbal racist assault by grown men; and then the kids were accused of being bigots. It just beggars belief that the same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the kids in the face.

THIS.

With this, I honestly don’t think another word can be said that adds anything. It is done.