WestCanMan

There are some, that much is certain. But does it make sense for the Dems to suddenly criminalize that one, brief riot, considering that the Dems spent the best part of 4 years inciting, promoting and supporting (both financially and by implementing policies which let rioters out of jail) violent riots all across America that killed dozens of people? Dems were bailing rioters out of jail (kamala herself did that), letting violent felons out on the streets 'because of covid' (leftist rag alert - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/coronavirus-jail-inmates-released.html ), talking about murdering the President (Waters), asking why there aren't more uprisings (Pelosi), they all backed the violent takeover of sovereign America soil in Seattle & the displacement of/assaults against innocent civilians and businesses who had a right to expect the protection of the government, etc. Here is a video of a guy who is the founder of a group and a website called "Insurgence USA", who led a violent riot outside the WH calling for his mob to 'remove the President', being called 'an activist' and being given a platform to talk on national TV by no less than Anderson Cooper at CNN. Those weasels at CNN knew that John Sullivan was guilty of sedition, his video is all over the internet and they even noted that the is the founder of "Insurgence USA", it says it right on their screen at the 20 second mark. Are you honestly trying to sit there and tell the world that the Dems and CNN should be allowed to call other people criminals? Get your head out of your arse Aristedes. Your comment is the epitome of blatant stupidity.

"We fully endorse all of those messages!" - the Demonrats. "Stay angry! Focus your anger!" - Michelle Obama. "The protests [rioting, arson, looting, racial violence and murders] will not let up. They SHOULD NOT let up!" - Kamala Harris.

You have literally no clue what you're taking about. Trump gob-smacked Putin multiple times as President. He propped up the Ukraine militarily with serious hardware and openly called for NATO allies to help stand up to Russia, which is something that Obama refused to do. He bombed Putin's ally in Syria twice (and Putin did a lot of sabre-rattling after the first bombing run - a lot of people didn't think Trump should bomb Syrian targets a second time). 200 Russian soldiers were killed while advancing towards an American base. Anyone with half a brain knows full well that America didn't take a back seat to anyone when Trump was President. And FYI Obama was the one who was caught on the hot mic talking to Medvedev saying "Tell Vladimir that I'll have a lot more freedom after the election." In case you didn't know, that's the exact same 'Vladimir' that took over Crimea less than 2 years later, and annexed part of their border with Ukraine. Why was Obama making side-deals with that guy Christy? Do you remember what Trump did when the Iranian militias killed a single American at an embassy in Iraq? Trump killed Iran's top two generals. Being a soldier when Trump was POTUS meant that you knew you had the full protection of the US military backing you. That's the exact opposite of life under Obama, when Americans were under attack for 13 hours and help from the US goverment never came. It was Iraqi militias that had to come save them. And when the Iranians forced American soldiers to their knees, Obama did nothing, he just sent them a plane load of cash. That's why terrorists were so bold when Obama was President. They knew that he'd always take a backwards step when anything happened. By contrast there were almost no islamic terrorist attacks on US soil while Trump was POTUS. As a girl you've never had to worry about whether or not you'd be drafted, or pressured into fighting in a war that you didn't really care about. You never had to worry about being put in an untenable position by your government and then being left for dead like Obama did to his troops. As a person who formerly served in the Canadian military I can promise you that I would never serve under a worthless, gutless weasel like Obama. It would be like asking to be taken alive by terrorists. Of course, as a leftist, you don't know what that means. Trust me, it's bad.

Lol. Their article was rife with disinformation and key omissions. It was garbage, just like I said that CNN is. YOU like it because you're a leftist, and for some reason leftists like rioting and racial division, so you're quite ok with CNN fabricating a false narrative which creates division and incites rioting. If you were the cop who got punched, had your taser stolen, had it shot at you, and the MSM was painting you as a racist bully and acting like the drunk driver who assaulted you was an innocent victim of racist violence you'd understand how atrocious CNN's reporting is. You are just a liar with no empathy so CNN's story is perfectly acceptable to you. That's disgusting.

You must admit that you're a known to be a total liar, right Buber? It's a bit rich for you to be accusing other people of being dishonest. Also, when I told you what the opening monologue said you didn't believe it could be so dishonest, now you're back in spin doctor mode lol. The MSM lies and they're dishonest ALL THE TIME. Period. I provided plenty of proof of that. You tried to debate against that, failed, got caught lying. Lol.

“Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru” 1) is exactly what CTV said and 2) still lends the impression that Rayshard really didn’t do anything to deserve being chased and shot. It was incredibly misleading and cast the police in a bad light while placing Rayshard squarely in the victim role. I didn’t have time to watch it today. I will destroy their false narratives later after I plug my nose and watch it again.

Don't really care what you're going on about Buber. Are you going to admit that CNN is lying filth or what? Also, here's the link of CTV's opening monologue, killed after falling asleep at a drive thru. It was already in the Rayshard Brooks thread, like I said. You guys should know better than to call me a liar by now. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1970845

For one thing, CTV did say that, the video is here, and I will find it for you soon enough. Another thing, you had your chance to defend CNN and all of their lies and you just ran like a little coward. You didn’t have anything to say. You talked big and said that they were “vindicated” and then when it was time to throw down some facts you had absolutely nothing. You had to admit that they are blatant liars. Why don’t you man up and reply to my posts MH? Lol.

Busted for telling a straight up lie - BuberMiley. Period. All of the leftist liars here can rally around buber and pretend like his lies weren’t that big of a deal and that it’s not a big deal that CNN lies just to incite a bit of rioting. Who cares? It’s not like we didn’t know that you guys were liars before now. Worthless scum, totally busted.

Rather than type all of that out I could have just said that you are a liar, but that's a pretty large accusation to throw around frivolously, so I proved that you are a liar. You changed the lawyer's words, which were plain for all to see, from "intentionally not a deadly weapon" which was 100% a lie to: "they aren't as deadly" which was 100% true. You might get away with this type of lying with most of the population but I have a pretty good command of the English language and I am not afraid to call a spade a spade. You're a liar. Go fish Buber.

You're just a total liar Buber. I proved to you that the whole article was deceptive, pointing their idiotic readers to a conclusion which wasn't at all accurate or fair, and which resulted in a feeling of hostility towards police. There are several key points in there which you failed to address, and your understanding of the lawyer's lie is a perfect example of believing what you want in spite of all evidence. This is a complete lie Buber. You just lied 100%. The lawyer didn't say that "tasers aren't as deadly as guns", which would be 100% correct, he said "the Taser is intentionally not a deadly weapon" which is a total lie. The taser can kill. The taser IS a deadly weapon. If you asked the company that makes the taser that was used by Brooks if firing it at someone's head is deadly use of force they would say, "Yes". Similarly, I could say that handguns aren't as deadly as rifles and it would be 100% true. Does that mean that I could also say "handguns aren't deadly" and it would still be true? You were just caught lying again Buber. You didn't have to lie. But you knew that you were lying and you did it anyways. You are a total liar. It is not true at all what the lawyer said, and while you can feign ignorance, the lawyer lied and he knew that he was lying. The Police use tasers because "if employed properly, and under the right circumstances, tasers can afford officers a less-lethal option of immobilizing someone who is a direct threat to their safety". And like I said before, a police officer was charged with aggravated assault 'for pointing a taser at someone." Didn't shoot, didn't punch or kick her, didn't physical touch her in any way shape or form to be considered guilty of an offence. He pointed a taser at her in Georgia, and the same AG who is pressing charges against the officer who shot Brooks is charging another cop just for pointing a taser. How safe is it to point a taser at someone Buber? Just remember, your last post was irrefutable evidence that you are in fact a liar. Next....

Next....

For starters, it's completely inflammatory and one-sided. The title itself says 'lists manner of death as homicide'. FYI the fact that it was ruled homicide is not title-worthy. Everyone on earth knew that the cause of death was gunshot wounds, but to the layman, the use of the word homicide proves "legally, the crime of murder was committed". An autopsy doesn't conclude that the police used unjustified force. It determines if he died from a human cause or if he just coincidentally had a stroke and died before he was shot and bled out. There are a lot of important points that are absent from it (ie lying by omission), and there is serious disinformation in it which goes unquestioned. They are basically lying by proxy, or taking advantage of someone else's lies so that they can print them and act like innocent rubes. This statement is a bold lie. The taser is a "less-lethal weapon", not a "non-lethal weapon". That means that it can kill, especially if used improperly (shooting a taser at someone's head is the best example of improperly). Google it and try to find a different definition if you want. The lawyer lied. Shocker. This is a classic example of CNN "not lying, but propagating lies and not correcting them". The layman reading this article would be tricked into concluding that the expert opinion of a lawyer could be trusted and that quote was valuable information when it was just pure deception. I knew it was a lie, and that means that people at CNN knew it was a lie as well. It's worth noting that CNN had just reported on a case two weeks earlier where a police officer (Willie Sauls) was charged with aggravated assault just for pointing a taser at a girl (something 'Pilgrim' is her name iirc). They knew how serious of a crime it is just to point a taser at someone. It's a felony to use a taser during a crime in Georgia, exactly the same way in which it's illegal to use a 9mm gun - the taser is included in the list of items, including guns, on the exact same statute. Look that up too. This law pre-dates the Brooks shooting: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol2/iss2/62/ IE, tasers are firearms in the eyes of Georgia law. Tasers = guns. Brooks was in a firefight. The type of taser that he had also fires two charges - he wasn't empty. Can you find any of that info in your article? Does the article mention that he blew .108? Way over the limit? Or that 30 people are killed in the US every day by drunk drivers? Does the article mention that, while .108 is bad, healthy <30 yr olds like Brooks don't pass out at 10 pm from just a .108 BA level? He was almost certainly on more than just alcohol, he needed to go in for bloodwork to look for marijuana or narcotics which added to his impaired state. The officers actually needed to bring him in - it wasn't a situation where they could get his car towed and call him a taxi. Also, the fact that Brooks would have been a-ok if he hadn't punched a cop, stole a taser, and shot it at a cops head was notably absent. At no point does CNN mention that Brooks put the officer in a position where his life was nearly ended, or he could have been permanently blinded. It actually does the opposite, by quoting a lie that said "the taser is intentionally not a deadly weapon". Brooks was "a violent armed felon who just shot a firearm at police" when he was killed. That's an important distinction notably absent. So yeah, that article was entirely and itentionally inaccurate.

Irrefutable proof of the fact that the bodycam footage was actually a lot more exculpatory than the MSM wanted to admit is the fact that after it came out, the riots vanished. CNN tried to selectively edit what their viewers saw and downplay it, but the dang internet let the unabridged truth out. It was just June 18th when Kamala Harris gushed that the riots would last until after the election, even after the new year. August 4th the footage came out and the riots fizzled to nothing almost immediately. Why didn't the Dems release that footage earlier to spare America all of the carnage and lost lives? Keith Ellison had it under lock and key for months. People were killed and billions of dollars worth of damage occurred. America became more divided by the day and the Dems revelled in it.

Oh BS. You can’t refute a single thing I said so you’re using one blatant lie as a catch-all. The comment about Brooks is 100% true, and the video of it is even posted on this forum. You lose, as usual. And FYI, the CTV comment was just a single example of the MSM’s false coverage. I promise you that you cannot find an accurate and honest account of the Brooks story anywhere on the MSM, period. I challenge you to find that anywhere Buber. CTV, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR..... It was widely reported on and talked about for days. This should be easy if you’re not lying.

That's an absolute lie. She 'can't name a year' (or doesn't want to because it makes her story easier to disprove), she can't say where it happened (same reason), she pretended to have witnesses but she doesn't, she never talked to the cops or a counsellor or a teacher or her friends or anyone one earth but theoretically it was 'traumatic', she pretended to have claustrophobia as a result of the incident but she lived her life like she did, she pretended not to know that the GOP offered to bring her a polygraph but even I knew that they had and I live on the opposite side of the continent in a different country. She was such a huge liar that her 'credibility' was 100% shot. In any courtroom in NA she'd be kicked out. She'd never get her lame story before a judge. CNN pimped that like it had credibility, much like you're doing. They aren't that stupid though, they were lying. What's your excuse? When people on CNN talked about Brionna they made it seem as though she was killed in her bed during a no-knock raid, and she was just a hard-worker with no criminal record. They use her story to protest against no-knock raids. Yes, police had a no-knock warrant. But they knocked and that's an accepted fact. She was killed in the hallway. She was killed after her boyfriend started a gunfight by shooting a cop. The cops were there because her ex-boyfriend was a major drug dealer who had packages dropped at her house. The whole "innocent Brionna" thing was used to incite riots and CNN let that happen. LMAO. That's the weakest defence of a blatant lie that I've ever seen. This one isn't even up for debate dude. By your standards all protests are peaceful because they aren't riots 'til they're riots. But the protests turned into riots on a consistent basis. People were killed all over the place. Elderly people were sucker-punched. Cops were assaulted in dozens of cities. There was billions of dollars worth of property damage. Businesses were permanently closed. Lives were ruined. All over America. CNN reporters were filmed calling protests "mostly peaceful" while there were buildings burning behind them. Give it up Buber. Now you're a liar too. You can't re-invent the crime of sedition to fit your narrative Buber. That's like lying. When Pelosi says "I don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the place" that's a call to action. When Waters talks about "taking out the President" that's an appeal for action. Sedition isn't limited to 'starting rioting which leads to attacks on buildings' dude. Calling for an attack on the POTUS is sedition. That was a direct quote from CTV. They started off a broadcast by describing the night's leading stories. I pasted a link here at MLW in a different thread that shows it. The exact quote is "Killed after falling asleep at a drive thru". It could as easily have been "Killed after the 1954 Super Bowl." Rayshard was killed after he passed out drunk behind the wheel, assaulted a cop and shot a taser at his face. The fact that he was at Wendy's is irrelevant. 30 people are killed by drunk drivers in the US every day, and in Georgia, shooting a taser at someone is legally equivalent to shooting a gun at them. It wasn't a case where the police had 'guns' and Rayshard was unarmed in the eyes of the law. FYI just 2 weeks earlier a police officer in Atlanta named Willie Sauls was charged with aggravated assault just for pointing a taser at someone. A taser isn't a 'non-lethal' weapon, it's a 'less lethal' weapon, but using it with any modicum of safety requires proper training. Shooting a taser at someone's head/neck can result in blindness or death. They put a screen over the picture with a quote, basically: "The Floyd family lawyer released a statement saying that the officers approached the van with their guns drawn because Floyd was black". That quote is 99.9% accurate. Maybe a word is different but that is the exact sentiment expressed on that clip. They didn't even have to show that quote because the video was already out showing police approaching the van properly, and pulling out guns AFTER Floyd was told to put his hands on the wheel MULTIPLE TIMES while he was rummaging under the passenger seat. Cops would pull a gun on anyone in that scenario. Even a cute girl. Wrong. They aren't allowed to let the "Gentle Giant" story be their fake narrative when there's video evidence that he was a violent criminal just moments earlier. Then he got into an altercation with an officer who was there to do his sworn, lawful duty. Is that "gentle"? If someone raped one of your family members and CNN was calling them a "gentle soul", and refusing to show video of their violent crime just moments before the rape would you think that they were lying? "Why are police prosecuting that 'gentle soul'. He gave his teacher flowers in the 3rd grade. C'mon man! Let him loose!" CNN: "An anonymous source in the WH said that Trump called all soldiers/veterans "losers"." It doesn't matter to CNN and their sycophant dolt horde that several people on hand, some Trump haters among them, said that the story wasn't true. CNN presents it as fact and their dolts gobble it up. Bobulinski was another example of a witness who put his face right on camera and gave a very detailed and apparently truthful testimony. CNN wouldn't even give it a half-hearted mention. Twitter blocked the NY Post from posting about the Bidens. That was true too. Trump's team did not collude with Russia, but Steele confessed that he sent in the dossier for no other reason than to influence the election. You can google the transcripts. The charge against Trump is well-known. I'm not sure what you need help with here, but CNN lied 100%. CNN won't entertain the story, period. Their reporters won't ask a question, period. Biden was caught in serious lies after the photo with Hunetr and Devon Archer came out. The people/networks that Joe lied to never admitted to even being offended. They never asked why he lied. They let it go quietly. This is more obvious lying from you. 1) The 25h Amendment crap came out dozens of times over the last 4 years. Jan 6th was just 12 days ago. 2) Biden dodged debates, and then Trump was interrupted over and over in the ones they did have while Trump was rebuked if he dared to talk over sleepy Joe. Joe also took the better part of a week off to rest up for the dbeates while Trump was holding a rally in a different state every day. 3) Trump did not instigate a riot, he asked for a peaceful protest, so that was a lie on your part. 4) In the very few, brief interviews that Biden gives there is no shortage of very serious breakdowns in his ability to speak the language that he was once fluent in. Plus he forgets where he is. He says he's running Senate when he's running for President. He says he's wearing a Philadelphia Eagles jacket when he's not even wearing NFL apparel. Etc. Biden is a total disaster when he's not appearing in public until after noon, and even then he's only doing brief appearances, a couple days a week. When the 24/7 job of being POTUS is on him and he has a busy schedule he will fold like a cheap tent. The only way that we won't won't be saying "President Harris" by 2023 is if we're saying "President Xi". I'll give Obama credit for one thing: he was smart enough to not endorse Joe even when he was younger.

It wasn't a reply to reefer, it was to MH. This link will take you there though. Feel free to try and make the case that CNN didn't blatantly lie about any one of those stories. And there are more. Plenty more. CNN's coverage of almost 100% of the main stories that have been in the news in the past 6 years has been mostly lies and propaganda. They literally can't cover a story without being deceptive and slimy.

Blah, blah, blah. Either tell me why inferring that Trump was a likely motivation for the incident or admit that CNN was lying, as usual.

I told you that CNN tried to infer that "Trump's anti-Semitism" was the most obvious reason for the violence. That was patently stupid, Trump's pro-Israel record and family offer concrete proof that he isn't guilty of anti-Semitism or of supporting it.

C'mon MAAAANNNN! It's time to congratulate Joe Biden, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, and Ben Johnson on their victories.

A certain lie was told about how the MSM's (ie CNN and their fellow alt-left dolts) atrocious reporting over the last 4 years was somehow vindicated recently, and I proved that was not the case at all by mentioning a litany of stories that CNN had lied about. I gave you ~ 15 of their narratives to choose from. Now the onus is on the resident alt-leftists here to discredit my post or it stands as a statement of fact. You've had days now. And FYI just saying that "The guy at CNN who said it was just a total idiot, and that's how he honestly felt" falls way short of the mark. There are thousands of people working at CNN, and they have dozens of news and opinions shows where they could set the record straight but they don't. Or if you think that you have proof that Don Lemon is regularly called out for his idiocy/lies by his colleagues then just post that. So pick one. Are you a man or a mouse. Squeak up Buber!

All you have to do is prove that one of their stories wasn't a huge lie. Just pick one, and I'll tell you how they lied about it.

It was blatantly idiotic disinformation, like I said many times before, and you only asked for one Buber so don't act like I didn't meet your quota. There are plenty more, and I gave you guys almost 15 stories to choose from so that you could pick your own example of when CNN didn't lie. This should be the easiest thing on earth, right? Just pick one of the 15 topics and act like CNN didn't just lie about it...

1) Rioting, looting, arson, treason, sedition, attacking police, assassination-style murders of police, and murdering innocent civilians just went out of style on January 6th Boges. Didn't you get the memo? You're literally the only person on earth who didn't. Maybe you need to get a TV or the internet or something hey? You don't wanna be so completely in the dark, it's bizarre. 2) FYI, CNN is pretending to hate sedition now, but they just attempted to legitimize America's poster boy for sedition by acting like he's the kind of guy whose opinions and observations matter (they also got sucked in like the morons that they are, because John Sullivan was actually there inciting violence and insurrection, as usual. And.... CNN had the 'Insurgence USA' brand right there on the screen lol. "Duuuuuhhhhh why'd he do that? Who coud have predicted it?"). Ask yourself, should Americans be listening to a guy like that? Should you still be watching CNN?

No, you've simply applied your false narrative to them.