BullBuchanan

It has to do with your warped version of history. Trying to equate protesters with far-right authoritarianism is at face value intellectually vacant. First of all, you cannot have fascism without authority, something that protesters against far right extremism completely lack in an organized manner. Second of all, anti-semitism is not distinctly left or right globally, but in America is most often associated with right wing extremist organizations as well as alt-right people who use "soros", "east coast elite"/"hollywood elite", and "mainstream media" as a dogwhistle for "jew". "Jews controlling hollywood, the media, and the banks" were all the prime racist talking points of far-right nutjobs in my youth and in my history books. Since then, the message has shifted but it means the same thing. You want BLM and Antifa to go away? Stop killing people. Stop assaulting protesters. It really is that easy

God you are so clueless. Did you study history in the south? I've never heard you correctly reference historical context. Everything you claim to know is wrong. I'm also not a liberal, FYI.

Things random users on twitter say for $1000, Alex. Nice source.

Referencing kristallnacht on behalf of the protesters of state sponsored fascism drips of irony.

But if they aren't breaking up a riot, then what. If they start the riot, are they terrorists?

And yet the sources were confirmed by Fox and CNN. Who else would have to confirm the information before you'd agree? Is Breitbart the bar, or would they just be a bunch of libtards then? The editor in Chief of the Atlantic is putting his entire reputation on the line for a pretty small story. Does that mean nothing?

I couldn't be further from an anarchist. What I'm going for is you seem to think that breaking a glass is terrorism, but: shooting unarmed people is not terrorism. using chemical weapons on defenseless people is not terrorism abducting people off the streets into vans is not terrorism I just want you to confirm or deny that. It's pretty simple.

Do you not understand why people report things anonymously? Maybe this will help you understand:

So is all of this then: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-force-against-peaceful-protesters-prompting-sustained-criticism-about-tactics-and-training/2020/06/03/5d2f51d4-a5cf-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html I guess the bar for terrorism has been lowered so far by the far right that it doesn't even exist anymore.

I mean, you cite disreputable sources and I don't know what you expect. It's like none of you ever paid attention in school when they made you cite your sources. You get your news from what amounts to conspiracy blogs and propaganda sites.

not a deflection at all. I'm asking if you believe breaking a glass is terrorism than surely what the protesters are protesting is terrorism. Wouldn't you agree? How can damaging property be terrorism, but hurting and killing people isn't terrorism?

So if breaking a glass is "terrorism", surely shooting unarmed people, using chemical weapons on protesters, and abducting them into unmarked vans is also terrorism? It's also tough to know if any of that ever actually happened. That site has a poor reputation: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

That's what I think about anything from Redstate: https://thebulwark.com/why-we-are-quitting-redstate/

Words matter.

Ok.

So, then they weren't "terrorized" at all?

"period"? That's always a good way to tell when someone is telling the truth... Biden is absolutely not in favor of defubnding the police. If he was, I'd consider voting for him.| https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907026973/fact-check-trump-and-bidens-records-on-criminal-justice Biden's record As Republicans were fond of noting during their convention, Biden has a 47-year record as a U.S. senator and then vice president. During much of his Senate career, he was a member of and chairman of the Judiciary Committee and in 1994 sponsored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. It came in a different era, as Democrats set out to prove that they, too, were "tough on crime." The bill included a 10-year ban on assault-style weapons as well as the Violence Against Women Act, which Biden points to today as a signal of his commitment to ending domestic violence. AMERICA RECKONS WITH RACIAL INJUSTICE Joe Biden Has Come A Long Way On Criminal Justice Reform. Progressives Want More But the act also included harsh penalties for drug-related crimes and money to construct new prisons, which critics said led to the mass incarceration of Black men. It also included funding to hire 100,000 additional police officers. Now, Biden has backed away from some of the provisions in that bill, while at the same time rejecting calls by some in his party to defund police departments. He has proposed a ban on police chokeholds, a new federal police oversight commission, new national standards for when and how police use force, more mandatory data collection from local law enforcement and other steps. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53997196

I backed it up with the statement from the mayor that he lied that Prude died of a drug overdose instead of the homicide the coroner ruled. I never once changed the subject from that point.

Of course. Didn't say she wasn't. War is messy. Was it the right thing to do? Who can say? If it caused less escalation than alternative approaches, then maybe it was the right thing to do. Ultimately I don't really care though. A dead body is just matter. In the ground, in the sea, or burned to ash, it's all the same. Of course there's general decorum, but that's about it.

What day in court? I didn't call for his arrest. Not that he shouldn't be. You don't have to be guilty in order to be asked to resign. The public was never told what happened until video evidence came out about it. I'm not sure what angle you guys are trying to push here. Exactly what part of this is up for debate? What the mayor said she was told? What the coroner ruled as cause of death? What was hidden from the public surrounding the details of the incident? Religion is a lie we tell children to get them to behave. Some people never grow out of it.

He didn't admit guilt and I didn't say that he did, though. All I said is that he was at the helm of the cover-up, which he was by 1) acting as chief when the coverup took place 2) directly participating by lying about the cause of death and circumstances surrounding it to the mayor. Are you disputing that he was chief or that he told the mayor that Prude died of overdose? Has Singletary even disputed that claim? This is to say nothing of the actual murder that took place under his watch.

Intellectual dishonesty? I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it means. What I stated were common facts of the case that I haven't seen disputed. After the incident, Singletary told the mayor that he died of a drug overdose which was false. What are we missing here? https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/autopsy-report-daniel-prude-death-ruled-a-homicide-asphyxia-due-to-physical-restraint/

What would you like me to source? That he was the police chief when Daniel Prude was murdered by police? That he lied about it?

Not directly involved? He was at the helm of the coverup.

I always had it. Biden and Harris are trash. Trump is wet hot trash. Are you confused about my point? You keep making my case.