Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack
-
Trust me, I know Feng Feng will be here spewing liberal bullshit at me for posting this.
-
right -
@raphjd I love how Tucker Carlson's "journalistic investigation" is a guy on Twitter and a guy on YouTube just making shit up and circle jerking each other.
From the article:
"First, Ngo insisted Brooks had shown his support for, “BLM causes, George Floyd & black nationalism,” in various old social media posts allegedly belonging to Brooks.
...
He mentioned that Brooks had shared a falsified and antisemitic Hitler quote. He’d also praised a George Floyd mural and stuck positive emojis above cartoon about racial profiling by the police. Other posts allegedly attributable to Brooks and distributed by Ngo included a soundcloud track critical of former President Trump and a photo of a fruit bowl that had been carved into a raised fist plus the letters “BLM.”None of those posts, or others floating around online and purportedly shared by Brooks, display anything resembling participation in the Black Lives Matter movement....
But if Brooks ever attended a protest or planned political action, violent or otherwise, he didn’t bother posting about that."
-
Do you mean like even after the trial, liberal media was stating that Kyle Rittenhouse killed 3 black men?!
You do know that The Daily Beast is a far-left rag, don't you?
The Daily Dot is also a far-left rag.
Terrorists can act alone.
Terrorists can be motivated by a movement, even if they are not directly a part of it.
A BLM Activist (Vaum Mayes) said that Brooks' actions had to do with the Rittenhouse verdict. Why isn't your liberal media calling him "far-right"?
Your sources claim that everything is white supremacy and black oppression.
-
-
Even ultra-liberal Debra Messing is against the MSM narrative.
-
To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.
What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.
Facts and word choice matters!
-
DO NOT LIE.
Kyle Rittenhouse DID NOT kill any black people.
Kyle Rittenhouse DID NOT kill 3 people, of any race.
He only killed 2 people, lawfully.
Stop spreading your liberal lies.
-
@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
...
He only killed 2 people, lawfully.Re-read your own post... he didn't kill... he only killed...
Why... you're Humpty Dumpty!“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, ca. 1871YES! He (Rittenhouse) most certainly DID kill those men. But, YES, he was justified in doing so - according to the jury! Thus, it was not murder (nor manslaughter)... in legal terms, it was "justifiable homicide."
And in our legal system, THEIRS (the jury's, not yours, and not mine) is the decision/opinion that matters!
That he (Rittenhouse) killed them was never in doubt! There was plenty of evidence of that. The trial was about whether it was justified, not whether it ever happened!
If you believe in the jury system (and I do), then you have faith that the Rittenhouse jury got it right, and you equally must have faith that the Arbery jury did so as well!
-
STOP BEING DISHONEST!!!!
I said that Kyle DID NOT kill 3 people.
He killed 2 people, lawfully.
The fact that you are too stupid to see the difference is why you are a Biden supporter.
-
@bi4smooth said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.
What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.
Facts and word choice matters!
I'm quoting this for posterity, in case you try to edit your post claiming you never said this.
Kyle, despite what your liberal "news" outlets want everyone to believe even after the trial, DID NOT kill 3 black men.
He lawfully killed 2 white men and shot another white man.
Either you are a blatant liar, or you are just a tool who listens to liberal "news" and repeats the bullshit lies they spew.
-
Back on topic.
Shane Ferro on social media said that we need to blame the fact that we have SUVs for the attack, not the driver.
Liberal "news" outlets are still calling it an "incident", "crash" and "accident" despite all the evidence showing it was intentional.
Imagine how hysterical they would be if the races were reversed.
-
@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
@bi4smooth said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.
What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.
Facts and word choice matters!
I'm quoting this for posterity, in case you try to edit your post claiming you never said this.
Kyle, despite what your liberal "news" outlets want everyone to believe even after the trial, DID NOT kill 3 black men.
He lawfully killed 2 white men and shot another white man.
Either you are a blatant liar, or you are just a tool who listens to liberal "news" and repeats the bullshit lies they spew.
Dude... you've done it again... He did not kill... followed by he did kill -- unless your issue is with 3 vs 2... so he killed 2 and nearly killed the 3rd... again, tho. the point of the trial was NEVER whether he shot at and killed anyone - he did.. the question at trial was: was it legal for him to have done so.
In Illinois, it was perfectly legal for him to do so (and in the same breath, you want to blame the Chicago (IL) mayor for all the homicides in her city! You kill me (jokingly) with the situational ethics!)
-
You are clearly a troll or an absolute idiot.
He killed 2, not 3.
He didn't kill any black people.
You don't even know what state it was in.
FFS you are a clown.
-
@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
Back on topic.
Shane Ferro on social media said that we need to blame the fact that we have SUVs for the attack, not the driver.
Liberal "news" outlets are still calling it an "incident", "crash" and "accident" despite all the evidence showing it was intentional.
Imagine how hysterical they would be if the races were reversed.
If you want to have someone to argue that Liberal media is biased, you'll have to find someone else... I've never claimed that Liberal media isn't biased - only that Conservative media is also!
Virtually ALL media is biased these days - because they went from public service organizations (all-but required by the FCC of old) in the 60's and up even thru the 90's and 2000's... to being required to be "profit centers" for their corporate masters. As "profit centers" they have to draw viewers from other "news" centers - and to do that, they have to sensationalize EVERYTHING!
Fox was the first to recognize that you could cater to a political viewpoint and quickly gain a "loyal following"... they were the first, also, to realize that news wasn't news anymore, it had become entertainment! As such, the old rules of reporting the truth were discarded... it didn't take long for the other news media to follow.
It'd be nice to have some path BACK to where "news" was interested in "public service" and "facts" - but I don't see where that would come from - certainly, it cannot come from the Government! IMHO, the only way we get back to "news you can believe" will be when viewers decide truth is more important than supporting their views...
That's gonna happen the same time children eschew candy for sugar-free granola bars and rice cakes!
-
@raphjd Democrats are referring to it as an "ACCIDENT" and they just say "a man" drove his SUV...
if they want to be 100% politically correct, they need to say "a person"
-
Even before FOX, the news was biased.
Go back and read the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. The Trib was clearly conservative and the Sun was clearly liberal. Fox had nothing to do with this because they were always different.
But yeah, let's blame Fox since they are the liberal boogeyman.
-
Hell, liberal media won't even say Darrell Brooks Jr's name.
It's a shame that social media shut down his accounts so we can't see them for ourselves. The right shares what was captured and the left claim they are lies.
-
@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:
Even before FOX, the news was biased.
Go back and read the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. The Trib was clearly conservative and the Sun was clearly liberal. Fox had nothing to do with this because they were always different.
But yeah, let's blame Fox since they are the liberal boogeyman.
You're confusing print newspapers (which have always had an "editorial slant") with the broadcast (television) news.
In the early days of TELEVISION, the FCC insisted that the new (not news) networks (and, indeed all TV & Radio stations) provide a certain amount of their broadcast time to "public service"... some stations (and both of the original networks: NBC and CBS) did this with "unbiased" news coverage (to the extent that any decision of what to broadcast and what NOT to can be unbiased)...
Because this programming was a "public service" the earliest newscasts didn't even have commercials in them! Names like Walter Cronkite & Edward R Murrow (CBS), and John Chancellor & John Cameron Swayze (remember the Times commercials later - in the 60's and 70's?) for NBC rose to considerable fame. NBC switched to a 2-anchor scheme (Chet Huntley and David Brinkley)... and the new ABC network (originally, nearly all sports boradcasts) joined in the fray in the 1950's with houehold names like Peter Jennings, Howard K Smith, & Harry Reasoner - as did the other network (few have ever heard of, as it didn't survive): DuMont.
It didn't take long for advertisers to want a piece of the action, but the networks limited them (originally) to being a "sponsor" (The Camel News Caravan on NBC, for example) - but there were no commercials INSIDE the newscast (which originally were 10 or 15 minutes long, not the 30 common today!).
These newscasts were modeled after the "newsreels" that were produced and distributed to movie houses in the 30's and 40's - and that used to come before the main show - another thing completely taken over by commercials today!
Virtually everyone "trusted" those news anchors - and their departments BENT OVER BACKWARDS to remain "neutral" in their news reporting. NBC and CBS routinely battled for "the most trusted man on television" honors (a precursor to more detailed "ratings wars" to come later)... once established, that was a title Cronkite never relinquished - much to the chagrin of the folks at NBC news.
For what its worth, DuMont also had a news department, but as a network it closed down in 1956.
Some of the older folks may remember the famous sign-off messages:
- Swayze would say: "Well, that's the story, folks. Glad we could get together"
- Cronkite would say: "And that's the way it is, <day of the week>, <calendar date>.
In any case - BACK THEN the news departments were NOT-FOR-PROFIT and the networks paid their reporters from profits that came from the "entertainment" department of the network...
Fox was the first network (they came along in 1986, originally as a purely-cable enterprise) to ask the NEWS division to make a profit... and once they were successful, the other networks were quick to follow... and THAT was the demise of the "trustworthiness" of TV news - in its entirety... CNN and all of the other cable news outlets included! (IMHO)
Honestly, while I think we DESPERATELY NEED a news source that is "in the public interest" (vs. a profit generator), I don't see how we ever get back to that...
-
Even in the UK where they have a legal requirement to be "fair and balanced" (especially true for the BBC due to its royal charter), there are massive liberal leanings in the news.
The various media outlets in the US and UK claim that their news is non-biased, but admit they do editorial programing as well.
