Ferguson, MO

[byco42]

That's rich coming from a single issue voter such as yourself.

It?s my differentiating one, and it?s not that much of an extension to other ?issues? that usually accompany it.

Keep in mind that preserving this ?issue? is the #1 priority of the agents who are sponsoring this social unrest.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Impeachment did not work.
Coronavirus did not work.
So, now, they are fomenting class and social discord and violence under the guise of “equality” when the elite that is playing us wants us all to be equally destitute and dependent on them.

Trump is not going along with this diabolical agenda afoot, led by the likes of Gates, and people whose names we will never know, who are exploiting an ethnic group to accomplish something antithetical to life itself, with the help of pawns known and unknown. You can spot them easily if you look for them.

Meanwhile, many of the posters here are looking through the binoculars with the bigger lenses stuck to their faces, as they want us to, and we infight and dwell on the minutia, which is not to be confused with the details.

When the techno-crazy-evile-taters can ACTUALLY guide us about like lemmings to the cliff, in the words of Jack Reacher “remember...you wanted this.”

Here’s a man with more sand than the Sahara. He knows what is at stake. Link .

I’ve started reading your posts in Morgan Freeman’s voice.

Sine then, I actually understand what you mean.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fV-F_Ezuqg

 

[mhughes0021]

One of us is an ignorant buffoon, but it's not me. I wonder if you can figure out who it is.


I guess it's just a lot easier to ignore statistics and facts and accuse the other person of being ignorant while you post a bunch of quotes and say they incite violence.

Yes i believe ordering a coordinated attack on peaceful protesters with tear gas and flash bangs as inciting violence (just so you can get a photo op). So is bringing in riot guards without name tags to police the streets without the mayors approval. That was this week alone...and youre the one that asked for evidence...im merely copy and pasting for you cause youre too ignorant to understand them on your own, apparently.

I also believe....as does a majority of the country (including a great number of republicans), that divisive quotes are a major cause of inciting violence and further trying to divide our country when your job as the president should be the opposite. All of his speeches are filled with political propaganda instead of addressing the country in regards to the issues they are bringing up. His first speech on George Floyd he spoke about ANTIFA? lol

 

[tinselwolverine]

Keep in mind that preserving this ?issue? is the #1 priority of the agents who are sponsoring this social unrest.

Right.

Except for, ya know, not murdering black people when apprehending them, and shit.

There?s also that.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yes i believe ordering a coordinated attack on peaceful protesters with tear gas and flash bangs as inciting violence (just so you can get a photo op). So is bringing in riot guards without name tags to police the streets without the mayors approval. That was this week alone...
I also believe....as does a majority of the country (including a great number of republicans), that divisive quotes are a major cause of inciting violence and further trying to divide our country when your job as the president should be the opposite. All of his speeches are filled with political propaganda instead of addressing the country in regards to the issues they are bringing up. His first speech on George Floyd he spoke about ANTIFA? lol

Okay...in your first point you?re parroting a narrative that the authorities deny - I?ve posted several links in which the authorities claim they were responding violence in Lafayette Square, and had no idea what Trump was going to do.

Maybe a person doesn?t believe it - I?m not 100% sold; could be true, could be bullshit - but so many reporting outlets came to the conclusion you just stated doing zero investigation.

To your second point, the ?unidentified peacekeepers? - weird. I posted a link to a Politico article about them; seems many may be corrections officers.

That said, I haven?t come across an account reporting a violent response to their presence.

Trump says some wacky shit, but people protested Floyd?s death, and as we?ve seen in peaceful demonstrations going back to forever, often they bring in another element that doesn?t give a shit about the cause but are instead pursuing various malevolent agendas.

Been going on long before Trump, will go on long after.

On the weekends as drive around on business I listen to sports radio; lately the talk has been about the Covid and the last two weekends, the talk had obviously been about all this.

Sports talk - not very political, right? Pretty unbiased, right?

In the wise words of billionaire capitalist Michael Jordan, ?Republicans buy shoes too.?

Anyway, the talk was about what other notable people were saying about the situation - barely a word about Trump. I was going to say not one word but I remember his comments from a couple years ago about Colin K were mentioned anecdotally.

People are not responding to Trump.

Not many people care much about Trump, except his nutty followers, and the equally nutty TDS crowd.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yes i believe ordering a coordinated attack on peaceful protesters with tear gas and flash bangs as inciting violence (just so you can get a photo op). So is bringing in riot guards without name tags to police the streets without the mayors approval. That was this week alone...and youre the one that asked for evidence...im merely copy and pasting for you cause youre too ignorant to understand them on your own, apparently.

I also believe....as does a majority of the country (including a great number of republicans), that divisive quotes are a major cause of inciting violence and further trying to divide our country when your job as the president should be the opposite. All of his speeches are filled with political propaganda instead of addressing the country in regards to the issues they are bringing up. His first speech on George Floyd he spoke about ANTIFA? lol

In the first paragraph, according to both the park police and the white house, everything you believe about that incident is wrong. According the sources you believe, it's a best unsubstantiated assertions. The video isn't evidence of the use of tear gas, white house orders, a 100% peaceful protest - that's all conjecture and none of it confirmed.

also, what the majority believes is irrelevant and I doubt you can confirm that assertion either. Anyone who isn't a blind sheep being led around by a divisive media that's nothing more than a mouthpiece for a particular political party knows quotes that don't call for violence aren't incitement to violence and people who think they are are most likely morons who have a propensity to commit and/or excuse violence because they don't like what someone said. Also, in his first speech about George Floyd, he didn't mention anything about ANTIFA. He talked about how horrible it was and said the FBI and DOJ should investigate the issue.

 

[byco42]

Right.

Except for, ya know, not murdering black people when apprehending them, and shit.

There’s also that.

1. There are people with genuine concern about this, like most of us.
2. The ones orchestrating this global revolution are not among them.
3. The ones mentioned in point #2 will never go without protection. (edit)

If you think this rioting and destruction is organic, please rethink this.

 

[tinselwolverine]

In the first paragraph, according to both the park police and the white house, everything you believe about that incident is wrong. According the sources you believe, it's a best unsubstantiated assertions. The video isn't evidence of the use of tear gas, white house orders, a 100% peaceful protest - that's all conjecture and none of it confirmed.

also, what the majority believes is irrelevant and I doubt you can confirm that assertion either. Anyone who isn't a blind sheep being led around by a divisive media that's nothing more than a mouthpiece for a particular political party knows quotes that don't call for violence aren't incitement to violence and people who think they are are most likely morons who have a propensity to commit and/or excuse violence because they don't like what someone said. Also, in his first speech about George Floyd, he didn't mention anything about ANTIFA. He talked about how horrible it was and said the FBI and DOJ should investigate the issue.

Nice.

I said much of the same thing; I think, though, I was simultaneously both more concise and more eloquent at the same time.

I also don’t brand media with quite as broad a brush; notice I specifically referred to a significant portion of the media that strives to be non-partisan.

I just call the wing of the media that hates Trump “the TDS crowd.”

EDIT: Oh...and I was pretty non-confrontational, as I strive to be, much in the way sports media strives to be nonpartisan.

 

[tinselwolverine]

1. There are people with genuine concern about this, like most of us.
2. The ones orchestrating this global revolution are not among them.

If you think this rioting and destruction is organic, please rethink this.

Hmmmm....uhhhhhh....

After several readings through in Morgan Freeman?s voice...I?m wondering...George Soros theory?

 

[byco42]

Hmmmm....uhhhhhh....

After several readings through in Morgan Freeman?s voice...I?m wondering...George Soros theory?

Hell, no. I submit that if you can name the organizers, they ain't them.

 

[Thumb]

Impeachment did not work.
Coronavirus did not work.
So, now, they are fomenting class and social discord and violence under the guise of ?equality? when the elite that is playing us wants us all to be equally destitute and dependent on them.

Trump is not going along with this diabolical agenda afoot, led by the likes of Gates, and people whose names we will never know, who are exploiting an ethnic group to accomplish something antithetical to life itself, with the help of pawns known and unknown. You can spot them easily if you look for them.

Meanwhile, many of the posters here are looking through the binoculars with the bigger lenses stuck to their faces, as they want us to, and we infight and dwell on the minutia, which is not to be confused with the details.

When the techno-crazy-evile-taters can ACTUALLY guide us about like lemmings to the cliff, in the words of Jack Reacher ?remember...you wanted this.?

Here?s a man with more sand than the Sahara. He knows what is at stake. Link .

Can you please show us on the dolly where the bad man touched you?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Hell, no. I submit that if you can name the organizers, they ain't them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mePjkQW_c

 

[byco42]

Can you please show us on the dolly where the bad man touched you?

Nowhere.


Now explain your meme and its subtext.

Actually, not interested.

 

[Thumb]

Nowhere.


Now explain your meme and its subtext.

Actually, not interested.

Okay, I just wondered, because this is like the 3rd time I have seen you post about how Bill Gates was going to be the end of humanity, I assumed there must have been a bad-touch situation in your collective pasts, since I'm pretty sure he doesn't perform abortions.

 

[Spartanmack]

Hell, no. I submit that if you can name the organizers, they ain't them.

Soros isn't the organizer, he's suspected of being their benefactor.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nice.

I said much of the same thing; I think, though, I was simultaneously both more concise and more eloquent at the same time.

I also don’t brand media with quite as broad a brush; notice I specifically referred to a significant portion of the media that strives to be non-partisan.

I just call the wing of the media that hates Trump “the TDS crowd.”

EDIT: Oh...and I was pretty non-confrontational, as I strive to be, much in the way sports media strives to be nonpartisan.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with your second line - you can't be redundant in the very sentence where you claim to be more concise.

You tend to be more neutral in general, I don't think anyone would disagree with that but in my defense it's easier to be nonconfrontational when you're not the one the ignoramus is calling ignorant.

 

[mhughes0021]

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with your second sentence - you can't be redundant in the very sentence where you claim to be more concise.

You tend to be more neutral in general, I don't think anyone would disagree with that but in my defense it's easier to be nonconfrontational when you're not the one the ignoramus is calling ignorant.

So you guys think...that it was MERE coincidence that the president was about to walk to a church. And about 100 cops all moving together in a coordinated attack to block off entire streets and to push back PEACEFUL protestors that were kneeling on the ground just HAPPENED to happen at the same time? And it just so HAPPENED to create the SAME exact path needed for the president to be able to walk to the aforementioned church he doesnt go to.
Are you really...no...no....you cant be that fucking dumb. You cant be....i have more faith in you guys than that.

 

[Spartanmack]

So you guys think...that it was MERE coincidence that the president was about to walk to a church. And about 100 cops all moving together in a coordinated attack to block off entire streets and to push back PEACEFUL protestors that were kneeling on the ground just HAPPENED to happen at the same time? And it just so HAPPENED to create the SAME exact path needed for the president to be able to walk to the aforementioned church he doesnt go to.
Are you really...no...no....you cant be that fucking dumb. You cant be....i have more faith in you guys than that.

Well you have more faith in me than I have in you and from what I can tell, we're both justified in our beliefs on that point.

What we've both said repeatedly, is the only official confirmation from either side indicates that the unverified reporting you're relying on has it at least partially wrong. First, there isn't a single official source at the white house or the park police that says the White House requested the park police to clear the area. That's a fact, so your belief that it was a coordinated operation for a photo op is purely based on conjecture and coincidence.

Second, the park police indicated that the cannisters you saw in the video were smoke, not tear gas. No one and no video has confirmed otherwise.

Third, the park police say their actions were taken because police were being pelted with objects like rocks and water bottles. Again, no one has produced any video evidence that the protest was 100% peaceful - there hasn't been a second of footage shown from prior to the police taking action, other than the video that shows the fire set intentionally inside the church. Your belief that the cops attacked protestors that were 100% peaceful has literally ZERO evidence to support it. It's he said/she said. Considering that the site was the target of arsonists less than 15 hours prior to the video, which explains why there were so many police guarding the scene, I'm certainly open to the possibility that like much of the protests around DC, this one wasn't 100% peaceful.

 

[tigermud]

White people are dumb.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5ede612d3df0b000240aa178

 

[mhughes0021]

Well you have more faith in me than I have in you and from what I can tell, we're both justified in our beliefs on that point.

What we've both said repeatedly, is the only official confirmation from either side indicates that the unverified reporting you're relying on has it at least partially wrong. First, there isn't a single official source at the white house or the park police that says the White House requested the park police to clear the area. That's a fact, so your belief that it was a coordinated operation for a photo op is purely based on conjecture and coincidence.

Second, the park police indicated that the cannisters you saw in the video were smoke, not tear gas. No one and no video has confirmed otherwise.

Third, the park police say their actions were taken because police were being pelted with objects like rocks and water bottles. Again, no one has produced any video evidence that the protest was 100% peaceful - there hasn't been a second of footage shown from prior to the police taking action, other than the video that shows the fire set intentionally inside the church. Your belief that the cops attacked protestors that were 100% peaceful has literally ZERO evidence to support it. It's he said/she said. Considering that the site was the target of arsonists less than 15 hours prior to the video, which explains why there were so many police guarding the scene, I'm certainly open to the possibility that like much of the protests around DC, this one wasn't 100% peaceful.

It wasnt park police...it was military police. Video below. The guy getting bashed with a riot shield at 52 seconds seemed pretty peaceful to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcSnDSEa8M