Originally posted by Bashar Teg
more corrupt pig activity, casually shooting at a reporter with pepper bullets on live TV, in front of dozens of other cops who stand back and watch, nobody moving to restrain him. okay then, don't cry about "honor and sacrifice" and "blue lives matter" when those chickens come home
I view the MSM as the biggest enemy of the people. But this type of abuse I will never support. Take their badges away and this is aggravated assault, right?
Originally posted by cdtm
So lets say the laws uniformly said "No shooting for looting".In a riot, How hard is it to prove they didn't shoot in self defense?
If the shopkeeper is standing there and the looter advances on him, is that justified self defense?
Is there such a thing as a non violent riot? Would any judge say "Prove you feared for your life", instead of immediately assuming riots are inherently dangerous?
I believe there is a concept in case law that you have a duty to notify in some way that you will use force. Perhaps I'm confusing that with Canadian case law. But you have to say something like, "Do not trespass or I'll shoot. You're scaring me and my kids, I'll shoot if you get closer." Something like that but not as dramatic, obviously.
And like I told Silent Master, you'd better get that shit and audio on camera.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
when we had the under class broken by Cameron, the Police simply identified people off CCTV after the rioting and gave disproportionate sentences.
Smart. I'm always impressed with how other countries handle these situations.
I do not support facial recognition. But this is a situation where facial recognition would be used...
So maybe I'm against this. But the people broke the law and need to pay for the damages.
Damn, I don't know what to think. I think we still shouldn't use facial recognition.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I view the MSM as the biggest enemy of the people. But this type of abuse I will never support. Take their badges away and this is aggravated assault, right?
then why the eliminationist "enemy of the people" dog-whistle rhetoric? forgive me if i observe that your disapproval seems disingenuous
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the blaze has zero credibility, so didn't read 👇
Went straight to the source and skipped TheBlaze:
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435?s=20
Seems legit since it was through the official "The White House" handle. If they lied about this, that would be libel and they are not stupid enough to fabricate a letter.
Also, yes, TheBlaze has been caught misrepresenting facts and outright lying, before. However, it's integrity is 2 points higher than CNN's, Fox's, or MSNBC's on the 100 point integrity scale.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Went straight to the source and skipped TheBlaze:https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435?s=20
Seems legit since it was through the official "The White House" handle. If they lied about this, that would be libel and they are not stupid enough to fabricate a letter.
Also, yes, TheBlaze has been caught misrepresenting facts and outright lying, before. However, it's integrity is 2 points higher than CNN's, Fox's, or MSNBC's on the 100 point integrity scale.
They can't admit this cuz it kills the narrative about twitter
Originally posted by dadudemon
Went straight to the source and skipped TheBlaze:https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435?s=20
Seems legit since it was through the official "The White House" handle. If they lied about this, that would be libel and they are not stupid enough to fabricate a letter.
Also, yes, TheBlaze has been caught misrepresenting facts and outright lying, before. However, it's integrity is 2 points higher than CNN's, Fox's, or MSNBC's on the 100 point integrity scale.
I'm sure Bash will be a man, apologize and admit Surt was right.
i'm glad we can agree that the blaze is not worth the energy required to read its articles.
as for the message in question (assuming it's not a forgery): it could be that a previous moderator reviewing it decided to leave it. you know they just paste the messages, of which that was probably 1 of 2. seems that the final decision was that it did break the rules, though
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i'm glad we can agree that the blaze is not worth the energy required to read its articles.as for the message in question (assuming it's not a forgery): it could be that a previous moderator reviewing it decided to leave it. you know they just paste the messages, of which that was probably 1 of 2. seems that the final decision was that it did break the rules, though
hey as long as your consistent and admit cnn and msnbc and salon and slate also aren't worth the energy 👆
Oh and your excuse is noted.
Originally posted by Surtur
Your cheerleader will be here shortly 🙂
I arrived to cheerlead PVS. Sorry I was late.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then why the eliminationist "enemy of the people" dog-whistle rhetoric? forgive me if i observe that your disapproval seems disingenuous
Sorry if I don't act and behave in the way you wish you could pigeon hole me into. But I am a tree hugging hippie liberal who doesn't condone violence.
You fight mega-dis-disinformation corporations with information. Not bullets (rubber or otherwise).
Here is the lesson: don't shoot the press, beat the press* at their own game.
*lol, no double entendre intended, dammit
Originally posted by Surturcnn, msnbc, and salon, as well as foxnews are biased. it is known. however there is a huge difference between selective filtering and outright lying, which the blaze is known for doing constantly
hey as long as your consistent and admit cnn and msnbc and salon and slate also aren't worth the energy 👆Oh and your excuse is noted.
Originally posted by Surtur
And so it begins. They already aren't being consistent.Twitter Censors Trump Tweet Denouncing Riots; Took No Action On Tweets Supporting Riots
Also Bash you just cried whataboutism and didn't address this bias either.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cnn, msnbc, and salon, as well as foxnews are biased. it is known. however there is a huge difference between selective filtering and outright lying, which the blaze is known for doing constantly
So i can't wait to see you dismiss CNN articles in the same way. Cuz the blaze doesn't lie more than CNN and hey you will of course prove it with your next post if you're saying they do 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
I arrived to cheerlead PVS. Sorry I was late.Sorry if I don't act and behave in the way you wish you could pigeon hole me into. But I am a tree hugging hippie liberal who doesn't condone violence.
You fight mega-dis-disinformation corporations with information. Not bullets (rubber or otherwise).
Here is the lesson: don't shoot the press, beat the press* at their own game.
*lol, no double entendre intended, dammit
vile scumbags
disingenuous dumbcunts
manipulative pieces of shit
rabble rousing douchebags
sadistic chaos-loving jerkoffs
...i could go on and on coming up with insults for the media, without quoting stalin even once. why can't you (or trump)?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cnn, msnbc, and salon, as well as foxnews are biased. it is known. however there is a huge difference between selective filtering and outright lying
All of them have done that: outright lying.
And many many many times, at that. It's a constant thing.
This is why I say MSM are the enemy of the people.
I'm okay with presenting the facts and then providing opinion on it. As long as you honestly presented the facts before diving into opinion and speculation.
Groups like TheBlaze, MSNBC, etc. bla bla bla. They don't do this. They outright lie, misrepresent the facts, leave out certain key facts, or pass off opinion as fact.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
vile scumbags
disingenuous dumbcunts
manipulative pieces of shit
rabble rousing douchebags
sadistic chaos-loving jerkoffs
These are pretty good.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
...i could go on and on coming up with insults for the media, without quoting stalin even once. why can't you (or trump)?
The difference between you and I is I would die to protect the rights of the press to be any of the following:
vile scumbags
disingenuous dumbcunts
manipulative pieces of shit
rabble rousing douchebags
sadistic chaos-loving jerkoffs
Okay, actually, that's not true. If they do something dishonest or manipulative that causes massive amounts of deaths and violence, that's not protected speech under the first amendment. They should be investigated and prosecuted in those circumstances.