Paid Protesters Protest not getting Paid

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, right here Dino proclaims his link is "proof" that they were not hired to protest (even put it in caps)


I didn't say they were. I merely posted a link that stated they were. I think I've said more than once in this thread; I do not "know". And usually not "knowing" puts you in the minority around here. For instance you 'know" they weren't paid to protest because you have a link that shows they were paid to travel.

Weird. I would think you quoting the story and adding the line about it being a "pretty good deal" meant you agreed.

(05-20-2015, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/#ixzz3acmWpseK


$5,000 a month and all you can loot seems like a pretty good deal.

But as usual the White Man is to blame:

And then suggesting that the actual groups web page and how it was twisted by whatever source you had didn't change the OP.

(05-20-2015, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure anything you posted refutes what the OP suggested.

Is it you assertion that it doesn't count as getting paid to protest; it only counts as get paid to travel to the protest site? I can see that makes a world of difference.

Already you were just trying to defend yourself by saying the OP was still correct...but it meant they got paid...not hired.

(05-22-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only similarities between the two is the funds are funneled through the same organization. Your link speaks of travel only and indicates a $20,000 cap. The OP mentions nothing of travel and lists funds of $50,000 in compensation already paid and another $57,000 expected.

How in "Dinoworld"  does one article do anything to disprove the other?

Apparently tweets from the individuals and an open source letter from the protesting organization's website is not enough. Admitedly some Right Wing blogs have ran with and perhaps embelished the story. I'll bet if Mother Jones or Huffinton Post posted that ish; you'd be all over it, but Washington Times is to be ignored.

Go all the way back to the 3rd post. I explained how I followed you link back to where the story came from...and how it was not correct.

Other than that you can now continue changing what you mean, redefining "hired" and "paid protesters" and your belief that the protests were therefore not organic and part of some conspiracy that I haven't quite figured out what it is yet.