has Biden done a good job as president?

[Bucky Ball]

yes stupid uncut videos are... how ever when you edit videos from multiple sources/different events and kibosh them into a singular story that pushes a specific narrative that any one of said videos does not tell on it's own, the video becomes propaganda. In fact as soon as it is edited it becomes secondary material. once you add a commentary it is not a tertiary source, and when you compile video to tell a narrative at best it's commentary when the government sponsors it it is propaganda.

Nope and nope. 
A video is a series of photographs, taken and played at whatever shutter speed your equipment is. 
Any commentary, which one can turn off, listen to, or ignore is irrelevant. 
Even *if* as you say they might be "edited" the images are still real images, and reflect the reality going on in front of the camera. 
You have no other explanation for what is actually represented in the images, other than there was a riotous insurrection, with the rioters storming into the capitol. 
You have no evidence they were "kiboshed" ... no one other than you claims that, and you have no evidence for it. 
If you're going to stupidly claim that, you get to say EXACTLY which frames were "kiboshed" and if you calim they are not from the riot, you get to say where they are from. 
Get busy.

The videos I posted are from major news outlets. Sky News, CBS News, and NBC News. They have reputations to protect in a comptitive business.
They have credibility. YOU HAVE NONE. There is not a shred of evidence the videos were spliced or "created", or altered in any way.
NO ONE except you, Mr Nut-case, has questioned them.
The government had NOTHING to do with the making of the videos.
Your dishonest attempt to pretend they are not true is just more of you psycotic bullshit.
The things that come out from a government are not defined a "proaganda" ... that's just your menal illness, and paranoia.
Some statements can be, but every sane person knows this happened as MILLIONS of people watched it REAL TIME on our TVs.

Who we gonna believe ? You, or our lyin' eyes ?

[Rev. Rye]

The reich wing decided that they're with the terrorists and against the united states.  What else are they going to say?

Yeah, funny thing, I can remember looking at the international responses to the Capitol storming on Wikipedia, and, besides certain far-right parties, one of the only reactions that was actually positive was from ISIS.  That speaks volumes about how far gone the Republican Party is.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're a post process post policy party. There's nothing left but the ethnostate. They no longer disagree with the dims on taxes, they disagree with the dims on who is a real person to which tax revenue can be adjudicated.

In short, they're traitors, enemies of the state. Ironic, eh?

[Bucky Ball]

Al Qaeda wouldn't have voted for a 9/11 Commission either.

[Drich]

yes stupid uncut videos are... how ever when you edit videos from multiple sources/different events and kibosh them into a singular story that pushes a specific narrative that any one of said videos does not tell on it's own, the video becomes propaganda. In fact as soon as it is edited it becomes secondary material. once you add a commentary it is not a tertiary source, and when you compile video to tell a narrative at best it's commentary when the government sponsors it it is propaganda.

Nope and nope. 
A video is a series of photographs, taken and played at whatever shutter speed your equipment is. 
Any commentary, which one can turn off, listen to, or ignore is irrelevant. 

why do you argue, known or established fact? something that can be proven?

this video is 3 mins long watch it..




This video demonstrates everything you said about what makes a primary source a primary source is wrong. it does so at the 22 second mark. "Original documents that do not analyze or describe other facts or documents." once you put a commentary to a video it stops being a primary source, unless that commentary is coming from the video itself. once you chop together several different videos to make a news story. it then becomes a tertiary source. 

here it is again just incase you want to remain ignorant by not watching the video:
A primary source is an original object or document -- the raw material or first-hand information, source material that is closest to what is being studied.
Primary sources vary by discipline and can include historical and legal documents, eye witness accounts, results of an experiment, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, and art objects. In the natural and social sciences, the results of an experiment or study are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources.
A secondary source is something written about a primary source. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material.  Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.
A tertiary source is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources.

you video is disqualified because it is telling you or it is commenting/"analyzing' the facts. arguement over.

now you say you can turn the commentary off. problem/what makes this propaganda is the eddit. it is evident this news reel video was taken from several sources and compiled in different order and was not from a single source.
A single source video is like the one i showed or shared with you where it shows a single pov it's order or time line was not interrupted and it was one continuous shot. you are watching from a single pov from the start of an event to the end. then it moves to another event.
video one shows cops talking on radio then cops moving the barricades providing entrance to the capitol building. then you see and hear cops telling people to go in. that is a primary source video.

And again second video is uncut we are viewing step at back of capitol building at a locked door. then doors open. then we see cops opening the door, then we hear cops telling people to come inside. next we see several maybe 1/2 a dozen uniformed officers wearing "police" riot gear with the word police on the front telling people to come in. and we hear one cop say we all dont agree with this but we were told...

again primary sourced material.

I demonstrated yesterday why or how the news video was edited to mis repersent and align the video with the narrative. to the point where a peaceful crowd was gassed just to make them seem wildly and out of control. they did not show the crowd peacefully singing the national anthem, nor did they show when an antifa member was trying to smash out a window the crowd stopped them and beat up the antifa guy for doing damage to the building.. the tossed in gas and people panicked/couldn't breath and it show a mass of people going crazy. then commented on how out of control people were trying to get in, when in fact they were trying to leave... you can even see the tear gas emanating from the crowd, and yet the narrative was the crowd was storming the building. if youve ever been around that gas you know this narrative is bullshit if you don't have the proper gear which most of them did not have. once exposed all you want is to leave and breathe clean air.

Even *if* as you say they might be "edited" the images are still real images, and reflect the reality going on in front of the camera.

no they don't. just gave an example as to why.. the images shown were of people scrambling to leave a tear gassed area, but the narrative when cut with people storming the building tells a different story. the video of people trying to frantically leave was cut into the narrative as if it were the entry point where the crowd gained entry into the building. when again the video i provided clearly shows the crowd enmass was let in by DC police. and no one entered from the gassed steps the major news outlet shows.

You have no other explanation for what is actually represented in the images, other than there was a riotous insurrection, with the rioters storming into the capitol.

you are not reading or listening to what i have said. this is like the 5th time now..

You have no evidence they were "kiboshed" ...

sure i do i already posted the video of the people on the steps getting gassed while peacefully protesting

no one other than you claims that, and you have no evidence for it.

that's not true. where do you think the videos i have come from? social media takes them down and i was even suspended from facebook for posting them, which shows there is a very strong effort to suppress the truth. but i have over 50 videos shared by people on palor and tiktok who were there i have multiple angles from uncut video showing every single major event that happened in the protest, which is why i am people like me know the news media is flat out lying to you.
I've seen the truth play out from several angles over and over again. fake news will not convince me otherwise.

The videos I posted are from major news outlets. Sky News, CBS News, and NBC News. They have reputations to protect in a comptitive business.
They have credibility. YOU HAVE NONE. There is not a shred of evidence the videos were spliced or "created", or altered in any way.
NO ONE except you, Mr Nut-case, has questioned them.

nuff said..

The government had NOTHING to do with the making of the videos.

awe... sweetheart.. you are so cute when you say stuff like this.
the truth is 15 men and their companies own all of the news that comes out in the US.. Those 15 men are not politically netural. in fact they are all radical leftists. now riddle me this sport. if you were say a bezos (richest guy on and off in the world. and you owned say20% of all the news outlets and say You HATED trump... would you allow any of your companies to report anything good about trump?

If you some petty POS nobody if given the opportunity to own 20% of all news outlets would not allow them to report anything good about trump, why then would a man who has billions if not potentially trillions of dollars at state while trump is in office? now why would the other 14 billionares who own all us media do the same?

What you fail to wrap your little mind around is the thousands of people that work for these news organizations don't all have to be corrupt before a new outlet becomes apart of a political party.. but rather just one/all of the 15 men who owns these company do... just 15 men have to agree that a president is good or bad and 1/2 of the country will blindly follow suit because they were 'educated/indoctrinated' to only except facts if it comes in the format of the 'trusted' evening news.

and because you are to proud to question yourself or your precious education that makes you feel superior, you will blindly follow anything the news tells you to follow.

even if there is video that shows the news to be out right lying.

Example the video of the cops letting people in.. Notice you never mention those videos or the uncut facts found in them. you want to argue minutia when blaring facts that prove you are being lied to go ignored. you don't argue those facts because you can't. you have nothing but to bury your head in the sand and hope they go away

[The Grand Nudger]

What gave you the idea that 15 men owned all of the news in the us, and that they were flaming leftists?

The only good thing there ever was to report about trump, was that he'd been fired.

[Angrboda]

Nope and nope. 
A video is a series of photographs, taken and played at whatever shutter speed your equipment is. 
Any commentary, which one can turn off, listen to, or ignore is irrelevant. 

why do you argue, known or established fact? something that can be proven?

this video is 3 mins long watch it..




This video demonstrates everything you said about what makes a primary source a primary source is wrong. it does so at the 22 second mark. "Original documents that do not analyze or describe other facts or documents." once you put a commentary to a video it stops being a primary source, unless that commentary is coming from the video itself. once you chop together several different videos to make a news story. it then becomes a tertiary source. 

God you are a monumental fuckup. You can't even quote your own sources accurately. It does NOT say, "Original documents that do not analyze or describe other facts or documents."

Maybe you should watch your own fucking video.

[Bucky Ball]

Nope and nope. 
A video is a series of photographs, taken and played at whatever shutter speed your equipment is. 
Any commentary, which one can turn off, listen to, or ignore is irrelevant. 

 bla bla bla

I'm glad you wasted all that time on something I just deleted and never read.
Kept such a nut-case off the streets for a while. 

My video is a primary sourse, as it PHOTOGRAHED the riot as it happened. I do not care about the commentary. 
Everyone can SEE what is happening. The end.
God you are stupid and dishonest.

---

Nope and nope. 
A video is a series of photographs, taken and played at whatever shutter speed your equipment is. 
Any commentary, which one can turn off, listen to, or ignore is irrelevant. 

why do you argue, known or established fact? something that can be proven?

this video is 3 mins long watch it..




This video demonstrates everything you said about what makes a primary source a primary source is wrong. it does so at the 22 second mark. "Original documents that do not analyze or describe other facts or documents." once you put a commentary to a video it stops being a primary source, unless that commentary is coming from the video itself. once you chop together several different videos to make a news story. it then becomes a tertiary source. 

here it is again just incase you want to remain ignorant by not watching the video:
A primary source is an original object or document -- the raw material or first-hand information, source material that is closest to what is being studied.
Primary sources vary by discipline and can include historical and legal documents, eye witness accounts, results of an experiment, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, and art objects. In the natural and social sciences, the results of an experiment or study are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources.
A secondary source is something written about a primary source. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material.  Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.
A tertiary source is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources.

you video is disqualified because it is telling you or it is commenting/"analyzing' the facts. arguement over.

now you say you can turn the commentary off. problem/what makes this propaganda is the eddit. it is evident this news reel video was taken from several sources and compiled in different order and was not from a single source.
A single source video is like the one i showed or shared with you where it shows a single pov it's order or time line was not interrupted and it was one continuous shot. you are watching from a single pov from the start of an event to the end. then it moves to another event.
video one shows cops talking on radio then cops moving the barricades providing entrance to the capitol building. then you see and hear cops telling people to go in. that is a primary source video.

And again second video is uncut we are viewing step at back of capitol building at a locked door. then doors open. then we see cops opening the door, then we hear cops telling people to come inside. next we see several maybe 1/2 a dozen uniformed officers wearing "police" riot gear with the word police on the front telling people to come in. and we hear one cop say we all dont agree with this but we were told...

again primary sourced material.

I demonstrated yesterday why or how the news video was edited to mis repersent and align the video with the narrative. to the point where a peaceful crowd was gassed just to make them seem wildly and out of control. they did not show the crowd peacefully singing the national anthem, nor did they show when an antifa member was trying to smash out a window the crowd stopped them and beat up the antifa guy for doing damage to the building.. the tossed in gas and people panicked/couldn't breath and it show a mass of people going crazy. then commented on how out of control people were trying to get in, when in fact they were trying to leave... you can even see the tear gas emanating from the crowd, and yet the narrative was the crowd was storming the building. if youve ever been around that gas you know this narrative is bullshit if you don't have the proper gear which most of them did not have. once exposed all you want is to leave and breathe clean air.

Even *if* as you say they might be "edited" the images are still real images, and reflect the reality going on in front of the camera.

no they don't. just gave an example as to why.. the images shown were of people scrambling to leave a tear gassed area, but the narrative when cut with people storming the building tells a different story. the video of people trying to frantically leave was cut into the narrative as if it were the entry point where the crowd gained entry into the building. when again the video i provided clearly shows the crowd enmass was let in by DC police. and no one entered from the gassed steps the major news outlet shows.

You have no other explanation for what is actually represented in the images, other than there was a riotous insurrection, with the rioters storming into the capitol.

you are not reading or listening to what i have said. this is like the 5th time now..

You have no evidence they were "kiboshed" ...

sure i do i already posted the video of the people on the steps getting gassed while peacefully protesting

no one other than you claims that, and you have no evidence for it.

that's not true. where do you think the videos i have come from? social media takes them down and i was even suspended from facebook for posting them, which shows there is a very strong effort to suppress the truth. but i have over 50 videos shared by people on palor and tiktok who were there i have multiple angles from uncut video showing every single major event that happened in the protest, which is why i am people like me know the news media is flat out lying to you.
I've seen the truth play out from several angles over and over again. fake news will not convince me otherwise.

The videos I posted are from major news outlets. Sky News, CBS News, and NBC News. They have reputations to protect in a comptitive business.
They have credibility. YOU HAVE NONE. There is not a shred of evidence the videos were spliced or "created", or altered in any way.
NO ONE except you, Mr Nut-case, has questioned them.

    nuff said..

The government had NOTHING to do with the making of the videos.

awe... sweetheart.. you are so cute when you say stuff like this.
the truth is 15 men and their companies own all of the news that comes out in the US.. Those 15 men are not politically netural. in fact they are all radical leftists. now riddle me this sport. if you were say a bezos (richest guy on and off in the world. and you owned say20% of all the news outlets and say You HATED trump... would you allow any of your companies to report anything good about trump?

If you some petty POS nobody if given the opportunity to own 20% of all news outlets would not allow them to report anything good about trump, why then would a man who has billions if not potentially trillions of dollars at state while trump is in office? now why would the other 14 billionares who own all us media do the same?

What you fail to wrap your little mind around is the thousands of people that work for these news organizations don't all have to be corrupt before a new outlet becomes apart of a political party.. but rather just one/all of the 15 men who owns these company do... just 15 men have to agree that a president is good or bad and 1/2 of the country will blindly follow suit because they were 'educated/indoctrinated' to only except facts if it comes in the format of the 'trusted' evening news.

and because you are to proud to question yourself or your precious education that makes you feel superior, you will blindly follow anything the news tells you to follow.

even if there is video that shows the news to be out right lying.

Example the video of the cops letting people in.. Notice you never mention those videos or the uncut facts found in them. you want to argue minutia when blaring facts that prove you are being lied to go ignored. you don't argue those facts because you can't. you have nothing but to bury your head in the sand and hope they go away

Wow. The rantings of a deranged nut-case. +
tl:dr

Get help. I've heard there may be pills for that.

[Rev. Rye]

What gave you the idea that 15 men owned all of the news in the us, and that they were flaming leftists?

The only good thing there ever was to report about trump, was that he'd been fired.

And presumably this would include Rupert Murdoch, who's such a flaming leftist he made Fox News (which is apparently the most watched news network in America and even the #5 most watched channel on American television last year period) blatantly right-wing and turned it into what basically amounts to the unofficial propaganda organ of the Republican Party.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we all know that ATT is a communist front, corporate news in general, really...all of it. Bunch of filthy bolsheviks.