Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The rightwing propaganda machine did every bit as much 'fanning'.
I heard these chants during the NYC protests, did you?
NYPD/KKK.......HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
HEY HEY, HO HO........THESE RACISTS COPS HAVE TO GO!
WHAT DO WE WANT?.......DEAD COPS! WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!
Perhaps you can come up with some right wing chants to match those.
I didn't hear any such chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the murderer heard the chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the chants caused the murders.
This is just one more example of rightwing propaganda trying to blame liberals for ANYTHING bad that happens.
What is wrong with you? I do believe you stated this in another thread and were treated to at least three separate posts with VIDEOS of them chanting they wanted dead cops. You are past the point of being ignorant of the event you are at the point of outright denying the events.
Of course there isn't a video of the murderer hearing those chants but there certainly is tweeter that clearly shows that is what he was thinking.
So you admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that the protests caused the murders.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzThe rightwing propaganda machine did every bit as much 'fanning'.
exactly what rightwing propaganda machine are you referring to ??
i have been looking for it but can not find it, would you please provide a link so that i may learn what you know about this evil rightwing propaganda machine ??
regards,
W
People who point guns at law enforcement deserve to be shot.
What if the police do actually act stupidly? Like when they shot an unarmed Koresch and killed another walking down the hall behind him? Or that they killed a man returning home from work, I assume unarmed? what about that and nothing ever happens to the ATF for inciting such a situation. You can't blame the Davidians the ATF brought it to them, and in my opinion, fired first. Probably killing the dogs but they did fire first. There was video of the opening moments of the attack, I saw them that day. Never have seen them again.
Let's see if we can figure out exactly who it was trying to instigate a violent incident with federal authorities on BLM land.
Can the answer be no one? I will spare you another strawman picture.
Let me ask you this, why was the BLM out there in force? What were they going to accomplish?
A better question would be: why where there armed assholes pointing guns at federal law enforcement and getting away with it? Why aren't they all in prison right now? That's where they should be.
Please provide picture of this happening, or else the strawman is coming back.
The rightwing propaganda machine did every bit as much 'fanning'.
I heard these chants during the NYC protests, did you?
NYPD/KKK.......HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
HEY HEY, HO HO........THESE RACISTS COPS HAVE TO GO!
WHAT DO WE WANT?.......DEAD COPS! WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!
Perhaps you can come up with some right wing chants to match those.
I didn't hear any such chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the murderer heard the chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the chants caused the murders.
This is just one more example of rightwing propaganda trying to blame liberals for ANYTHING bad that happens.
What is wrong with you? I do believe you stated this in another thread and were treated to at least three separate posts with VIDEOS of them chanting they wanted dead cops. You are past the point of being ignorant of the event you are at the point of outright denying the events.
Of course there isn't a video of the murderer hearing those chants but there certainly is tweeter that clearly shows that is what he was thinking.
So you admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that the protests caused the murders.
You have not evidence they did not. We know what they said and that is more then reasonable protest. Whether the murderer heard it or not we can not know. What we do know is his tweeter echoed what was being said at the protests.
The rightwing propaganda machine did every bit as much 'fanning'.
I heard these chants during the NYC protests, did you?
NYPD/KKK.......HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
HEY HEY, HO HO........THESE RACISTS COPS HAVE TO GO!
WHAT DO WE WANT?.......DEAD COPS! WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!
Perhaps you can come up with some right wing chants to match those.
Too easy.
The rightwing propaganda machine did every bit as much 'fanning'.
I heard these chants during the NYC protests, did you?
NYPD/KKK.......HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
HEY HEY, HO HO........THESE RACISTS COPS HAVE TO GO!
WHAT DO WE WANT?.......DEAD COPS! WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!
Perhaps you can come up with some right wing chants to match those.
I didn't hear any such chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the murderer heard the chants. You have no evidence whatsoever that the chants caused the murders.
This is just one more example of rightwing propaganda trying to blame liberals for ANYTHING bad that happens.
like what?.....if the person just goes right back to stealing because a slap on the wrist does not hurt and knows thats what he is going to get.....what should be done Joe?....maybe knowing you are going to that prison for a few years might be the incentive one needs not to steal........I think the only people who should be doing time are people who actually hurt other people.
so a shoplifter should not do time no matter how many times he steals as long as no one is hurt?...just let him go and wave your finger at him?...
I think there are alternative punishments to throwing him in prison with rapists and murderers.
Of course, prisons are big business.
How is it the other industrialized nations only lock up 50,000-80,000 people and WE have to lock up 2 million.
It's nuts.
"The Grand Jury says", is all you folks are capable of. The fact that the process was a travesty of justice makes that testimony useless.
It seems to me that of all the problems and issues we face, revising the Grand Jury system would be relatively easy. The potential conflicts of interest when a DA is considering the prosecution of a cop or other public servant are pretty freaking clear.
An obvious fix would be to have a different set of rules for public servants, some kind of independent panel that would run the Grand Jury process. Perhaps the panel could have both public servants and civilians. It shouldn't be that damn tough.
.
Do you realize when you say different you are saying they are different then the rest of us? Which could be assumed to mean better then us?
But I do have a problem with your inference. It seems to me that you are implying that the prosecutor did something to sway the GJ into a wrong conclusion. By everything I have read that isn't true.
"The Grand Jury says", is all you folks are capable of. The fact that the process was a travesty of justice makes that testimony useless.
It seems to me that of all the problems and issues we face, revising the Grand Jury system would be relatively easy. The potential conflicts of interest when a DA is considering the prosecution of a cop or other public servant are pretty freaking clear.
An obvious fix would be to have a different set of rules for public servants, some kind of independent panel that would run the Grand Jury process. Perhaps the panel could have both public servants and civilians. It shouldn't be that damn tough.
.
Do you realize when you say different you are saying they are different then the rest of us? Which could be assumed to mean better then us?
But I do have a problem with your inference. It seems to me that you are implying that the prosecutor did something to sway the GJ into a wrong conclusion. By everything I have read that isn't true.
No, I have no evidence of any wrongdoing. It just -- and this is obviously subjective -- doesn't smell right to me.
Human nature is what it is, and the relationship that a DA has with other public servants simply is not the same as it is with the general public.
No, I don't mean "better". I mean different. If a system could be put in place where potential conflicts of interest could be significantly decreased or removed, I'd like to see what that would look like.
.
But you just said it was against the law, not that it was against policy.A chokehold is not illegal. It's silly to discuss something with anyone who doesn't know the facts.
More whites were stopped overall than blacks.
Now you are just making up your own facts.
NYPD policy prohibits use of the chokehold.
They outright murdered that man. that's what people are angry about, you troll.
So, a one man crusade?OK, let's go with your theory. Was it a conspiracy, then?
I think McCollough has a history of clearing cops no matter how guilty they are.
"The Grand Jury says", is all you folks are capable of. The fact that the process was a travesty of justice makes that testimony useless.
It seems to me that of all the problems and issues we face, revising the Grand Jury system would be relatively easy. The potential conflicts of interest when a DA is considering the prosecution of a cop or other public servant are pretty freaking clear.
An obvious fix would be to have a different set of rules for public servants, some kind of independent panel that would run the Grand Jury process. Perhaps the panel could have both public servants and civilians. It shouldn't be that damn tough.
.
Do you realize when you say different you are saying they are different then the rest of us? Which could be assumed to mean better then us?
But I do have a problem with your inference. It seems to me that you are implying that the prosecutor did something to sway the GJ into a wrong conclusion. By everything I have read that isn't true.
No, I have no evidence of any wrongdoing. It just -- and this is obviously subjective -- doesn't smell right to me.
Human nature is what it is, and the relationship that a DA has with other public servants simply is not the same as it is with the general public.
No, I don't mean "better". I mean different. If a system could be put in place where potential conflicts of interest could be significantly decreased or removed, I'd like to see what that would look like.
.
I am making a judgement here, but apparently the only difference could be is if the GJ had indicted the cop. I didn't read the evidence only what I heard the prosecutor say he did and it sounded to me like what he did was fair.
But maybe I read you wrongly and you are saying that all of these types of incidents should automatically go to trial? Regardless of the evidence? Especially if one group is going to riot?
"The Grand Jury says", is all you folks are capable of. The fact that the process was a travesty of justice makes that testimony useless.
It seems to me that of all the problems and issues we face, revising the Grand Jury system would be relatively easy. The potential conflicts of interest when a DA is considering the prosecution of a cop or other public servant are pretty freaking clear.
An obvious fix would be to have a different set of rules for public servants, some kind of independent panel that would run the Grand Jury process. Perhaps the panel could have both public servants and civilians. It shouldn't be that damn tough.
.
Do you realize when you say different you are saying they are different then the rest of us? Which could be assumed to mean better then us?
But I do have a problem with your inference. It seems to me that you are implying that the prosecutor did something to sway the GJ into a wrong conclusion. By everything I have read that isn't true.
No, I have no evidence of any wrongdoing. It just -- and this is obviously subjective -- doesn't smell right to me.
Human nature is what it is, and the relationship that a DA has with other public servants simply is not the same as it is with the general public.
No, I don't mean "better". I mean different. If a system could be put in place where potential conflicts of interest could be significantly decreased or removed, I'd like to see what that would look like.
.
I am making a judgement here, but apparently the only difference could be is if the GJ had indicted the cop. I didn't read the evidence only what I heard the prosecutor say he did and it sounded to me like what he did was fair.
But maybe I read you wrongly and you are saying that all of these types of incidents should automatically go to trial? Regardless of the evidence? Especially if one group is going to riot?
Well, I'm not really thinking about the rioting standpoint. No, I'm just saying that, because of potential conflicts of interest, we could revise the GJ process in the case of public servants. I don't have a plan for it, outside of some panel that may lead the process.
.
Let's see if we can figure out exactly who it was trying to instigate a violent incident with federal authorities on BLM land.
Can the answer be no one? I will spare you another strawman picture.
Let me ask you this, why was the BLM out there in force? What were they going to accomplish?
A better question would be: why where there armed assholes pointing guns at federal law enforcement and getting away with it? Why aren't they all in prison right now? That's where they should be.
Please provide picture of this happening, or else the strawman is coming back.
Begs the question: How stupid are you?
Look, in my opinion Bundy is a redneck jerk, no doubt. Or I just don't understand what is going on. Your video shows no one pointing guns specifically at anyone else. It does show the police walking around as if they were not scared of being shot. Would you walk around a crowd that you think might shoot you for no reason? I think the black officer is prejudice against white crackers, just like everyone thinks NYC police are prejudice against blacks.
What is really scary is the land they are arguing over. It sure looks like scrub land to me.
I also think that those who are so paranoid and our out in force with their guns are nuts. They have to know they are just playing a stupid game. They have to know if they were to shoot their lives would end very soon. I think them idiots but will say I don't know what it is they were trying to prove or what the BLM is out there doing in the first place. Sounds like they were trying to rustle his cattle.
.
They'll take the credit for any victories, and they'll avoid the blame for any tragedies.
.
You're fanning the flames of division by posting that...you realize that. Will you apologize? No? Interesting.
