Infidel Dog

And when you look at things like customized nail-ridden fireworks, blinding lasers and other improvised weaponry how is this not terrorism?" So wouldn't these Media guys you do support who appear to be supporting the riots be supporting terrorism? Why should we listen to them then?

I'll give you a bit of the interview with the DHS agent from my post above to give you a clip of what law enforcement is dealing with: So if not's Antifa coordinating and fomenting such things across America, who is it? Who's telling them where to be, when, and what to bring. Or are you saying it's not happening? Speaking of those high powered lasers used to blind law enforcement those aren't child's toys either. I just watched an interview with the White House press secretary. She was saying the 3 officers blinded by lasers in Portland may not recover their eyesight. Here's an example of a laser insurgent harassing a helicopter:

Not just an inference. WCM asked a clear question suggesting you inferred Trump wanted 3 states to separate from America. He asked where you heard that. You then posted a graphic which when you understand the context Trump was saying no such thing. You then said you heard what WCM suggested you were inferring from Trump. At that point you weren't inferring. You were stating. You were either lying or you don't understand context. How many times do we have to say the same thing? In your defence, I actually think you simply didn't understand the context of Trump's quote. You obviously have trouble understanding simple things. It's explained about as clearly as I can offer now. You made a mistake. Live with it.

No problem. If it works for Shady I'll give it a go. The clueless remarks you made that I can't make heads or tails of as far as they appear to referring to something you seem to think I said but don't remember ever even thinking is pretty much everything you said or at least tried to say in the second half of your post.

Here's another good one like that, only it's in text and there's more editorializing from the DHS agent. DHS agent in Portland: Protesters seek to embarrass, defeat Trump, ‘Catatonic with hate’ I'll give you a taste:

This one's from Portland:

Yeah, because fireworks...what harm could they cause? Right? EXCLUSIVE: Atlanta ‘Protesters’ Embedded Nails into Fireworks, Leaked FBI Document States https://www.breitbart.com/border/2020/07/27/exclusive-atlanta-protesters-embedded-nails-into-fireworks-fbi-document-states/

What "report?" I referred you to an article from The Guardian. I believe I gave you the first paragraph. You might want to try reading it before you tell me what's in it. Here it is again: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/europe-warns-of-need-for-vigilance-as-covid-19-cases-rise-sharply

You mean the one on the CHAZ zone in Seattle negotiated between Mayor Jenny of Seattle and BLM where at least 5 shootings occurred in 23 days? Are you thinking it might be fake news that I heard the Mayor refer to it as a "block party?" Could be. I heard it in an interview with Chris Cuomo from CNN: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/12/seattle_mayor_durkan_chaz_has_a_block_party_atmosphere_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html#! She also thought the riots terrorizing her city could be a "Summer of Love."

My nightly news guy was calling them demonstrators. I saw a reporter on CNN call them "Peaceful Protesters" while a building burned in the background. The Mayor of Seattle was calling CHAZ a "block party." Personally I think the ones fomenting the violence (and yes there has been violence - also looting and vandalism) are neo or anarcho Marxist insurrectionists able to operate under cover given by leftist media and politicians hoping to use the unrest for their benefit in the November elections. Meanwhile cities burn and the families of victims weep.

But hey, if you really don't want to believe these aren't "peaceful protests" they're violent riots because Tucker Carlson was the one showing you the videos of the violent riots get the same message from this lady reporter who covers the riots:

Really? That's all you've got left? Name-calling "Racist." Nobody said anything racist. Not me and not Neff. Starting to sound a little desperate there Bud. Speaking of desperation though, yes I know leftists like Vox and Mediate have nasty desperate things to say about Tucker but he's still the one with the most popular news show on cable (maybe anywhere) and that just makes them more mad and more desperate. But we who watch him to get the facts they're not allowed to talk about only chuckle.

I already gave you my opinion of his responding to the thread with the N word in the title. It was nothing you or I haven't done on message boards - or worse. It's a nothing burger. Black men keeping the crime down during the Covid crisis by staying at home and playing Call of Duty sounds like snarky off colour humor but if you check out crime statistics it's probably also accurate. The fact you don't want to people to know that fact, not even as humor, doesn't bother me. The leftist website Vox.com posted an article Black Americans don’t sleep as well as white Americans. That’s a problem. So, is it only OK when Vox says it? Come to think of it. How do you know he wasn't citing that article when he said the same thing? As far as his opinion "the only people who care about changing the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins are "white libs and their university-'educated' pets," he's dead-on. Go Neff. Now, you seem to think these were grave offences worthy of taking somebody's job over. In this case, at least, you're pro cancel culture. I'm against it. In this case especially. I'm a little disappointed that Tucker didn't go to the wall for the guy but me and Tucker don't always agree on everything. On my side of the political divide we're allowed to do that. Disagree with each other. You're missing something as far as that goes, over there in the land of the Borg. As far as Tucker Carlson goes he gives us the facts you would prefer people didn't know and if you had your way you would have him canceled just as you laud the cancelling of his writer. Tucker has the highest rated show on cable news. I like it that, that pisses off the right people and nothing they say against him is going to make me do anything but smile and click him on every chance I get.

One of the proposed crimes of this writer was he responded to a thread that had the N word in the title. My first day at this board I saw a thread with a title using the word "Chink" to describe Chinese people. Now if you responded to that one would it be OK for CNN to go after you ten years from now, saying you were using a fake name and involved in talk too objectionable for a paragon of morality like a CNN writer to repeat (although he already did it in print. ) Would it be OK for the mob to harass your ten years in the future employer and demand your job. Oh and I already saw the segment about the 2 doctors who had a different opinion than what the censorious left approves of on Covid and how they were censored. I thought it was great.

Or you could say one of his writers was a victim of cancel culture. Apparently he had belonged to a some sort of message board since the days a decade or so earlier when he was a lawyer. He chatted some chat of questionable content if you're a social justice, cancel culture freak. I'll bet if the mob decided you were the enemy they could find something they could use on you too. Or anybody for that matter. Because Tucker is target #1 of the mob and it's media henchmen but they can't intimidate him in spite of trying everything from doxxing, to threats, to attacking his family when he was at work and forcing him to move they went after the only weak link they could find. One of his writers. Poor guy. But Tucker himself is just more of a hero for all he's gutted through. And he's still doing his job speaking truth to the power of mob, media or any other force of the dark and violent left. Go to the 3 minute mark of that video if you want to know what the writer's supposed crimes against humanity actually were. Not much (if anything) in my opinion.

Well, at least there's one guy in the MSM you can still rely on for the facts:

No. Can you seriously not stop yourself? WCM's question was clear as daylight. The inference of your reply was equally clear and incorrect. So either you were lying or you're not capable of understanding context. It's as simple as that. As to the rest I haven't a clue what you're talking about so I edited it from the quote.

Surely the nightly news guys at least want you to hear the Garrett Foster story. Or are they too worried you might get interested and search for the complete details. So Garrett Foster is this military vet. His wife is a quadriplegic. They both attend these "peaceful protests." Garrett was shot on saturday while "peacefully protesting." He has many supporters now who are very upset and would like to tell you so on camera. What's not to love as a mainstream news story? I would expect CNN, MSNBC and WaPo to be pulling out their hair and screaming for justice every night. Except people might do some investigating on their own and discover Garrett Foster was a Psycho who got out of the military before his term was up and was patrolling the illegal protest with an AK. The insurrectionists blocked the road and surrounded a car screaming. The mighty Garret rushed the car pointing his AK 47. Driver of said car (also ex-military, but the real thing) pulled his pistol and gave Garret a Darwin award. So maybe that's why we're not hearing about it every night. Or are we. Here's Garret: Here's some video of the shooting:

So it's looking like the vaccine is close: https://apnews.com/33c57aa5d44d5cec2842964345fa16b1 Too bad we can't do polls here. I'd like to know how many will be lining up early. Think I'll wait until a few hundred million guinea pigs try it first.

If you want to make a wide-sweeping claim about a current fluctuating stat you could note that. But I thought we agreed that wouldn't prove much. You could offer it up though so I could reply something like... New York's low numbers could be a result of the fact those most vulnerable have already been cured or are dead. Any second wave would be delayed. I thought we went into that. It's worth remembering it wasn't me who originally brought up Texas and Florida. I'm rebutting an inaccurate claim challenged by changes over time.

Apparently. Up and down. Just like the daily positives in Texas and Florida. So maybe it's not such a wise thing to make wide-sweeping claims based on a steadily fluctuating, current stat. Right Boges? However it's worth noting that the decrease in positive rate went like this: Where the rise was in a weekend and went like this:

I'm sorry but that's a lie. You clearly wanted us to believe that Trump wanted what WCM called "the liberation of 3 entire states via civil war." That BTW is also a lie or an inability on your part to understand context in Trump's tweet. Who you heard it from is just you thinking you're being clever. It doesn't change what you're claiming. I'm scratching my head why you would lie so openly when what you're saying is so easily disproved with the quote. To which you replied:

And did you notice the daily positives for the two states you originally feigned concern over - Texas and Florida - are actually decreasing over the last couple of weeks? This according to the site you originally linked to. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states

Charlie Baker, the governor of Massachusetts is a Republican: Mass. COVID-19 positive rate down 2 months into reopening

The massive increase of tests accounts for higher infection raw numbers. Currently America tests about 8 times that of Spain and Germany and about 14 times that of France. I notice you forgot Belgium. Second waves can still happen in areas where the previous infections were high like Italy or New York. But who was gotten is already gone or cured and immune. Why would it surprise you that it might take a little longer to resurge? As the Guardian told you resurgences are starting to happen in Europe. And there's all sorts of stats buried within stats. Positivity rate for example would not necessarily include things like false positives or negatives. Who is shown positive in increased testing would be another big one. Younger people are often asymptomatic and have a miniscule death rate yet increased testing would catch them and increase positivity rate. I believe you've already been told this and other arguments against your belief Positivity rate is the be-all, end-all of stats.