Can Anyone Find Evidence Of This?

[oxmixmudd]

"Some officers" doesn't sound like policy when using tear gas. "Some officers" may have opted for masks because of what rioters may throw at them, or even covid. It couldn't have been many because I didn't see any.

I don't believe the sergeant (or whomever) said "OK men, we're going to go out there and fire tear gas. You can wear masks if you want to, but you don't have to."

The lack of masks is odd if they were using tear gas. That said, there is evidence they did, canisters found at the scene, indicating someone used them.

Regardless of the exact technical designation, a gas that is an eye irritant was used, as well as flash bang grenades, as was physical force. As I said a while ago, I'm not sure it actually matters in terms of what theycdidxandxwhy they did it. Nor does it matter in terms of thevijternational response to it, and to our continuing slide towards an authoritarian government.

What Trump has taught us is that the safeguards we have against an authoritarian president simply are not enough. We will have to work on that after as soon as possible.

[Whateverman]

What Trump has taught us is that the safeguards we have against an authoritarian president simply are not enough.

I've been saying for a few years now that - within the next half century - I expect something that will loosely be referred to as The Trump Amendment to the Constitution. It'll further define the powers and limitations of the presidency.

[Ronson]

The lack of masks is odd if they were using tear gas. That said, there is evidence they did, canisters found at the scene, indicating someone used them.

Someone probably did - someone not authorized to use it. Or someone planting an expired canister to make political hay. I'd say either of those options are more likely considering police were not wearing protection against gas.

Regardless of the exact technical designation, a gas that is an eye irritant was used, as well as flash bang grenades, as was physical force. As I said a while ago, I'm not sure it actually matters in terms of what theycdidxandxwhy they did it. Nor does it matter in terms of thevijternational response to it, and to our continuing slide towards an authoritarian government.

What Trump has taught us is that the safeguards we have against an authoritarian president simply are not enough. We will have to work on that after as soon as possible.

I don't really have an argument with you on those points. It's not just Trump but the federal government as a whole, and its many, many layers of unanswerable bureaucrats and federal policing agencies that scare me.

[DivineOb]

I did?

In this post you affirmed the accuracy of Sparko's post which claimed caches of weapons had been recovered. Also here you reaffirm your belief that that reporting was accurate.

That's an official statement from the United States Park Police. It's not your usual "sources say" nonsense, so that's probably what confused you.

So were you lying then or are you lying now?

[Mountain Man]

In this post you affirmed the accuracy of Sparko's post which claimed caches of weapons had been recovered. Also here you reaffirm your belief that that reporting was accurate.

That's an official statement from the United States Park Police. It's not your usual "sources say" nonsense, so that's probably what confused you.

So were you lying then or are you lying now?

You said, "In this very thread you claimed that protestors had stashed weapons for later use..."

I claimed nothing of the sort, meaning your statement was false.

[DivineOb]

You said, "In this very thread you claimed that protestors had stashed weapons for later use..."

I claimed nothing of the sort, meaning your statement was false.

So you're lying in both instances then. Way to glorify Christ.

[Mountain Man]

So you're lying in both instances then. Way to glorify Christ.

"In this very thread you claimed that protestors had stashed weapons for later use..."

That's what you said. So go ahead and quote my exact words where I made that claim.

[DivineOb]

"In this very thread you claimed that protestors had stashed weapons for later use..."

That's what you said. So go ahead and quote my exact words where I made that claim.

And I stand behind those words. Argument by dictionary sucks but here is the definition of the verb claim

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

You directly asserted that the contents of the official statement was true when you chided me with

That's an official statement from the United States Park Police. It's not your usual "sources say" nonsense, so that's probably what confused you.

What a liar you are.

[Mountain Man]

And I stand behind those words. Argument by dictionary sucks but here is the definition of the verb claim

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

You directly asserted that the contents of the official statement was true when you chided me with



What a liar you are.

I didn't directly assert anything, and I never quoted anything having to do with weapon stashes, I only quoted the part where the official referred to the unruly actions of the "peaceful" protestors, something even the source you cited agrees with.

Survey says... you're a moron who is so desperate to catch me out that you got caught in your own trap.

[DivineOb]

I didn't directly assert anything, and I never quoted anything having to do with weapon stashes, I only quoted the part where the official referred to the unruly actions of the "peaceful" protestors, something even the source you cited agrees with.

Survey says... you're a moron who is so desperate to catch me out that you got caught in your own trap.

Should I trust official statements from the Park Police?

[rogue06]

There needs to be a term for whatever the opposite of "damning with faint praise" is. If you are going to put these examples on the same level as lying about the use of tear gas, failing to properly vet W's "dishonorable discharge," lying about war zone reporting etc. then you've truly earned your RWNJ bona fides.

However, I do remember the Anderson Cooper one from when it was making the rounds because I respected him as a journalist. Of course it was just hype but that's all RWNJs have anyway.

Those examples were provided because they were both amusing and had undeniable images. But if you want more serious examples, how about we start with NBC's deliberate doctoring of George Zimmerman's 911 call? You know, the one that they intentionally altered in order to make the "white Hispanic" Zimmerman look racist.


Keep in mind that in 2000 a survey was conducted of 300 journalists and news executives by the Pew Research Center and Columbia Journalism Review which revealed

About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices

And that was 20 years ago when some parts of the MSM still at least pretended to present a non-agenda driven news.

[Cow Poke]

Someone probably did - someone not authorized to use it. Or someone planting an expired canister to make political hay....

In departments with which I am familiar, tear gas and flashbangs are serial numbered, assigned, and accountable. When an officer deploys a flash-bang, he is required to write a report about when/where/why.

Don't know if that applies to whoever may have used it in DC -- again, part of the problem is that there are multiple agencies for that one jurisdiction.

[Mountain Man]

Should I trust official statements from the Park Police?

Ah, so you've gone from "YOU directly asserted X!", a claim you failed to support with any direct quotes from me, to "Should we trust an official agency when THEY assert X?" which is something else entirely.

It's okay, I don't expect you to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying, but maybe you'll surprise me.

[whag]

Those examples were provided because they were both amusing and had undeniable images. But if you want more serious examples, how about we start with NBC's deliberate doctoring of George Zimmerman's 911 call? You know, the one that they intentionally altered in order to make the "white Hispanic" Zimmerman look racist.


Keep in mind that in 2000 a survey was conducted of 300 journalists and news executives by the Pew Research Center and Columbia Journalism Review which revealed

About one-quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories, while nearly as many acknowledge they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Fully four-in-ten (41%) admit they have engaged in either or both of these practices

And that was 20 years ago when some parts of the MSM still at least pretended to present a non-agenda driven news.

Half Peruvians can be racist. Comedian George Lopez is famous for pointing out his grandmother’s racism. But since you obviously are in Zimmerman’s corner as evidenced by this and your prior defense of his actions, here’s a small reminder of his life after being acquitted (from his wiki page):

Twitter scandals
In late August 2015, controversy centering on Zimmerman arose when his Twitter profile picture of a Confederate flag "backed by an American flag" (in his words) became better-known. Frequently criticized posts of his from August included one in which Zimmerman called Obama an "ignorant baboon";[62] one in which he posted an image of Vester Lee Flanagan, an African-American former news reporter who shot and killed two ex-coworkers during a live broadcast, and wrote, "If Obama had a son...";[citation needed] and another in which Zimmerman typed, in response to people who wanted him killed, that the United States understands "how it ended for the last moron that hit me" (in reference to Trayvon Martin).[63]

In September 2015, Zimmerman retweeted a photo of Martin's slain body posted by another Twitter user, who had the caption: "Z-Man is a one man army". Several days later, Zimmerman posted a letter saying that the photo in the original tweet was marked as "sensitive" and was blocked, so he retweeted it because of the text message without seeing the photo.[64][65]

In December 2015, Zimmerman tweeted two photos of a topless woman he claimed was his ex-girlfriend, and accused her of cheating and of the theft of his firearm and money. He included her phone number and e-mail address on his tweet. Less than two hours later, Zimmerman's Twitter account was suspended by the administration of the resource, according to their policy against posting another person's private and confidential information, including e-mail addresses, phone numbers and familiar photos.[66][67] Zimmerman's tweet included a statement against Muslims.[68]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman

[DivineOb]

Ah, so you've gone from "YOU directly asserted X!", a claim you failed to support with any direct quotes from me, to "Should we trust an official agency when THEY assert X?" which is something else entirely.

It's okay, I don't expect you to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying, but maybe you'll surprise me.

More lies from you. I showed how what you did fits the definition of a claim and I mean of course it does. Are you suggesting that any single word I don't reproduce from a link into a post is one I can deny "claiming"? That's absurd.

I'm asking you if I should trust official statements from the Park Police. If you say 'no' then I will admit you didn't claim what you clearly claimed.

Be an honest dialoguer for once in your life and admit you don't stand behind everything you typed up. I do it plenty.