Liberal hack blames Baltimore on, you guess it, our war veterans

[NYcarbineer]

What a moron! But then, that's just another way of saying liberal!

CNN ANCHOR BROOKE BALDWIN BLAMES MILITARY VETERANS FOR BALTIMORE RIOTS

In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city’s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.

There’s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.

This is pure CNN; throwing out anti-science smears towards the best people this country has to offer while it is in reality the rioters who are “doing battle.” It is savages who are looting and burning and causing anarchy, not the police. But it is the Baltimore police who have 15 wounded among their ranks. It is the Baltimore police who calmly did not do much battle during Monday night’s riots.

Baldwin and CNN just can’t help themselves. This is a cable news network that relentlessly launches Hate Campaigns to smear decent people, like Christians, as a way to deflect from the evils done by the Gaystapo and the thugs who are tearing down predominantly black, working class cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.

CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin Blames Military Veterans for Baltimore Riots - Breitbart

The cop who murdered Walter Scott was a veteran.

And the mayor who ALLOWED LOOT ZONES is a democrat.

She didn't do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

H

...I am a veteran and I don't see her comment as blaming us at all...she refers to SOME individuals that come back and are not prepared, do not know communities and are ready to do battle as they were trained to do in the military........are you going to deny the truth in that? If you are, then be prepared to deny the suicides, the spousal abuses, the drug and alcohol abuse, the homelessness, the PTSD that the SANE ones here see.

Oh, puh-leeze... comments such as those, made under these circumstances, are designed to place the blame on returning war-veterans, either in part or in the whole, and represent irresponsible journalism... giving rioters and protesters more grist for their dumbass mill... giving aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak... pouring gasoline on a raging fire.

You may not perceive such comments, in such a way, but yours it not the only opinion, and many (myself included) believe you to be wrong, when you try to lessen her culpability.

There is no excuse for making such inflammatory comments at such a time... none whatsoever... you are defending the indefensible, under the circumstances.

i

Hi Kondor3

I read the intent of the original comments as seeking to calm down the situation, not inflame it more.

I read the Commentary and Interpretation of the comments as trying to stoke public insult and outrage.

The true focus should be on rectifying whatever extreme actions caused Gray's spine to get severed, and to better address and prevent rioting and looting in the future.

That should be the focus, and anything else is deflecting, either to calm the waters as I am guessing the comments were intended, or to point the flaming someplace else.

If ppl like you need to flame and vent, that serves its purpose too, and is better than looting and rioting to express rage.

But it doesn't solve the problem of disrespect for law and order. It's equally venting for personal reasons. It's part of grieving over what our country is going through. Everyone's angry and fed up on all sides. We just have different ways of releasing it, and after that, maybe we can talk and work through these issues without deflecting in ways that insult or are taken wrong as is this case. I don't think that was the intent at all, but at this point everyone is outraged at all the things going wrong.

We're in this boat together. God bless you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a moron! But then, that's just another way of saying liberal!

CNN ANCHOR BROOKE BALDWIN BLAMES MILITARY VETERANS FOR BALTIMORE RIOTS

In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city’s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.

There’s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.

This is pure CNN; throwing out anti-science smears towards the best people this country has to offer while it is in reality the rioters who are “doing battle.” It is savages who are looting and burning and causing anarchy, not the police. But it is the Baltimore police who have 15 wounded among their ranks. It is the Baltimore police who calmly did not do much battle during Monday night’s riots.

Baldwin and CNN just can’t help themselves. This is a cable news network that relentlessly launches Hate Campaigns to smear decent people, like Christians, as a way to deflect from the evils done by the Gaystapo and the thugs who are tearing down predominantly black, working class cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.

CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin Blames Military Veterans for Baltimore Riots - Breitbart

The cop who murdered Walter Scott was a veteran.

He was in the Coast Guard! Hardly an Iraq War Veteran.

You want to try again?????????

Yeah,

Tim McVeigh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope the OP isn't insinuating that being a veteran (like I am) in some way mitigates bad behavior.....and yes, severing someone's spinal cord AFTER arrest is bad behavior.

The the woman I am quoting in the op IS INSINUATING, that it's the fault of OUR VETERANS for the BAD BEHAVIOR OF RIOTERS.

Keep trying that spin!

Are you catagorically denying this statement is true?

“I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

YOU AGREE with her that the Baltimore Riots is the fault of our WAR VETERANS????????????????

How would I agree with something that she did not say? How is that done on your planet?

I am a veteran and I don't see her comment as blaming us at all...she refers to SOME individuals that come back and are not prepared, do not know communities and are ready to do battle as they were trained to do in the military........are you going to deny the truth in that? If you are, then be prepared to deny the suicides, the spousal abuses, the drug and alcohol abuse, the homelessness, the PTSD that the SANE ones here see.

This is a liberal war against the obvious.

It's OBVIOUS what the CNN anchor was insinuating. But liberals will still insist that just because it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, I still haven't proved it's a duck.

Keep trying that BS Bodey!

It's obvious you're a liar.

It's obvious you're wrong.

It's obvious you're a ridiculous partisan hack.

 

[Kondor3]

H

...I am a veteran and I don't see her comment as blaming us at all...she refers to SOME individuals that come back and are not prepared, do not know communities and are ready to do battle as they were trained to do in the military........are you going to deny the truth in that? If you are, then be prepared to deny the suicides, the spousal abuses, the drug and alcohol abuse, the homelessness, the PTSD that the SANE ones here see.

Oh, puh-leeze... comments such as those, made under these circumstances, are designed to place the blame on returning war-veterans, either in part or in the whole, and represent irresponsible journalism... giving rioters and protesters more grist for their dumbass mill... giving aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak... pouring gasoline on a raging fire.

You may not perceive such comments, in such a way, but yours it not the only opinion, and many (myself included) believe you to be wrong, when you try to lessen her culpability.

There is no excuse for making such inflammatory comments at such a time... none whatsoever... you are defending the indefensible, under the circumstances.

i

Hi Kondor3

I read the intent of the original comments as seeking to calm down the situation, not inflame it more.

I read the Commentary and Interpretation of the comments as trying to stoke public insult and outrage.

The true focus should be on rectifying whatever extreme actions caused Gray's spine to get severed, and to better address and prevent rioting and looting in the future.

That should be the focus, and anything else is deflecting, either to calm the waters as I am guessing the comments were intended, or to point the flaming someplace else.

If ppl like you need to flame and vent, that serves its purpose too, and is better than looting and rioting to express rage.

But it doesn't solve the problem of disrespect for law and order. It's equally venting for personal reasons. It's part of grieving over what our country is going through. Everyone's angry and fed up on all sides. We just have different ways of releasing it, and after that, maybe we can talk and work through these issues without deflecting in ways that insult or are taken wrong as is this case. I don't think that was the intent at all, but at this point everyone is outraged at all the things going wrong.

We're in this boat together. God bless you.

There is a time to talk about the cause of the problem in Baltimore (police negligence or misbehavior) and there is a time to talk about the media fanning the flames.

I was engaging in the latter.

Your interpretation and mine differ.

Greatly.

 

[bodecea]

What a moron! But then, that's just another way of saying liberal!

CNN ANCHOR BROOKE BALDWIN BLAMES MILITARY VETERANS FOR BALTIMORE RIOTS

In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city’s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.

There’s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.

This is pure CNN; throwing out anti-science smears towards the best people this country has to offer while it is in reality the rioters who are “doing battle.” It is savages who are looting and burning and causing anarchy, not the police. But it is the Baltimore police who have 15 wounded among their ranks. It is the Baltimore police who calmly did not do much battle during Monday night’s riots.

Baldwin and CNN just can’t help themselves. This is a cable news network that relentlessly launches Hate Campaigns to smear decent people, like Christians, as a way to deflect from the evils done by the Gaystapo and the thugs who are tearing down predominantly black, working class cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.

CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin Blames Military Veterans for Baltimore Riots - Breitbart

The cop who murdered Walter Scott was a veteran.

You feel like going on record here, stating that returning veterans are unfit to serve as police officers?

Hmmmm....interesting that YOU want to make such a statement...a statement that the reporter NEVER made.

Oh, grow up, fer Crissakes... is that not the logical conclusion one draws from such implications? Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, but when will you clowns figure out that an over-reliance upon literalism is not a defense for what is implied by such things.

You know...I reflected more upon her comments last nite...and about what many of you said on this thread and..................

I'm still not offended by her comments. Sorry, just can't work up the faux outrage and poutage....still can't accept turning her words into something she didn't say and then primal scream about the fantasy.

 

[Kondor3]

...I'm still not offended by her comments. Sorry, just can't work up the faux outrage and poutage....still can't accept turning her words into something she didn't say and then primal scream about the fantasy.

Her remarks about returning veterans and their readiness to do battle were real, and purposely timed, and served to pour additional fuel on the fire in Baltimore.

(1) At the time she made that remark, did she know the background of the officers involved, and (2) did she have any credible reason to suspect that service-connected behavioral issues on the part of the officers had anything whatsoever to do with the incident?

If the answer to either of the above questions is "No", then she was out of line.

Very far out of line.

If the answer to both of the above questions is "Yes", then I will happily concede the point.

 

[zeke]

is that not the logical conclusion one draws from such implications? Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, but when will you clowns figure out that an over-reliance upon literalism is not a defense for what is implied by such things.

Do you mean like when all the right wingers came to the defense of Canada Ted when he mentioned that guns and insurrection go hand in hand? That the 2nd Amendment was for the people to revolt against our government.

Did you take Teds words literally? Or was he using a figure of speech.

I read where a lot of tight wingers claim that is NOT what Ted was saying.

But the rest of us knew what Ted was saying. We knew he meant it (revolt) literally. Just like you know that announcer was speaking about ALL veterans. LMAO

 

[Kondor3]

is that not the logical conclusion one draws from such implications? Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, but when will you clowns figure out that an over-reliance upon literalism is not a defense for what is implied by such things.

Do you mean like when all the right wingers came to the defense of Canada Ted when he mentioned that guns and insurrection go hand in hand? That the 2nd Amendment was for the people to revolt against our government.

Did you take Teds words literally? Or was he using a figure of speech.

I read where a lot of tight wingers claim that is NOT what Ted was saying.

But the rest of us knew what Ted was saying. We knew he meant it (revolt) literally. Just like you know that announcer was speaking about ALL veterans. LMAO

I don't even know who Canada Ted is, never mind what he said.

 

[bodecea]

...I'm still not offended by her comments. Sorry, just can't work up the faux outrage and poutage....still can't accept turning her words into something she didn't say and then primal scream about the fantasy.

Her remarks about returning veterans and their readiness to do battle were real, and purposely timed, and served to pour additional fuel on the fire in Baltimore.

(1) At the time she made that remark, did she know the background of the officers involved, and (2) did she have any credible reason to suspect that service-connected behavioral issues on the part of the officers had anything whatsoever to do with the incident?

If the answer to either of the above questions is "No", then she was out of line.

Very far out of line.

If the answer to both of the above questions is "Yes", then I will happily concede the point.

Ah...so the talking point has changed...from "She disrespected all war veterans" which didn't fly to...."She's throwing fuel on the fire." That doesn't work either.

What will be the faux outrage be over tomorrow?

 

[zeke]

I don't even know who Canada Ted is, never mind what he said.

So you want to play stupid? Well ok then. I have noticed you aren't playing though.

 

[Kondor3]

...I'm still not offended by her comments. Sorry, just can't work up the faux outrage and poutage....still can't accept turning her words into something she didn't say and then primal scream about the fantasy.

Her remarks about returning veterans and their readiness to do battle were real, and purposely timed, and served to pour additional fuel on the fire in Baltimore.

(1) At the time she made that remark, did she know the background of the officers involved, and (2) did she have any credible reason to suspect that service-connected behavioral issues on the part of the officers had anything whatsoever to do with the incident?

If the answer to either of the above questions is "No", then she was out of line.

Very far out of line.

If the answer to both of the above questions is "Yes", then I will happily concede the point.

Ah...so the talking point has changed...from "She disrespected all war veterans" which didn't fly to...."She's throwing fuel on the fire." That doesn't work either.

What will be the faux outrage be over tomorrow?

You are hallucinating if you believe that a point has been conceded or that an attempt was made to change the subject.

Any reasonable person would construe her remarks to mean that she had knowledge that wartime experiences of the police officers played a part in their behaviors in Baltimore.

Or, at the very least, that she had credible reason to suspect that this was the case.

I then asked those two questions.

Do you have the answers to those questions?

I don't.

Failing that, the original observation and contention stand, pending your serving-up of the answers to such important questions, if those ever materialize, by way of counterpoint.

Perhaps you can manage that by tomorrow, eh?

 

[Kondor3]

I don't even know who Canada Ted is, never mind what he said.

So you want to play stupid? Well ok then. I have noticed you aren't playing though.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... now... give us a clue... who-the-phukk is Canada Ted, and what does he have to do with an over-reliance upon Literalism, in connection with the troubles in Baltimore, and WhatzHerNamez dissing of veterans?