Of what you've been told. You're brushing it all under the carpet, pretending like it doesn't exist, falling back on accusations of it being 'far right conspiracy theories' so that you can continue to shield yourself from the reality of it.
The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I didn't say they were, did I?
They're a little more Understandable, given the number of unarmed, totally innocent black peoples,e ghost are gunned down by the police over there!
Crime stats can be driled right down, so white on white can be determined, as can the numbers and ethnicities killed by Police, so it's not "countless" as you claimed earlier
The third class treatment is part of a valid point, and the BLM movement detracts from that.
Your own link destroys your claims!
It doesn't. It says he didn't directly pay for protesters or riots. I haven't said he does, only that some of the groups he funds end up involved.
Not directly, those are the connotations I'm picking up from his comment though.
No, it doesn't. It does just the opposite. It highlights a major problem with policing attitudes in the US.
Everybody is so keen to isolate black on black crime. Nobody seems to want to talk about white on white crime!
No I'm not. I've had a good look around and can see no evidence for it. A vast amount of stuff on the net these days is conspiracy theories from all shades of political opinion. The facts are very hard to discern and seem beyond the capabilities of a fair few on here.
I think a fair few want to focus on crime and poverty rather than just colour.
So I am a hypocrite for supporting Clinton because one of her many funders also gives millions of dollars to fund work in support of minorities, some of which ends up in the hands of protestors, a few of which turn violent. You've got me bang to rights!
No, you didn't. But you're making this out as if there is a ranking to who is more valuable... As proven by what you wrote directly under this very question.
Are they all unarmed and totally innocent?
It really does, but you probably only read the first line or two.
"But taking that information and converting it into the assertion Soros himself funded Ferguson-related protests and riots is problematic for a number of reasons. Although George Soros is the founder and chairman of OSF, he quite obviously does not personally oversee and approve every single grant made by the OSF network to the multitude of organizations and programs that the network helps to fund. As well, the $33 million figure includes just about every organization with any connection to Ferguson-related activism that received monies from the OSF network, even if their involvement was tangential (such as publishing, writing, or promoting hashtags about the issue). And that such groups may have received part of their funding from the OSF network doesn't mean those funds were given for the specific purpose of organizing Ferguson-related protests, or with the knowledge or intent they would be used thusly."
In other words, as your orange hero would say, "wrong".
Have you criticised people for supporting trump because of the KKK?
If you have, yep, you're a hypocrite for selective use of guilt by asociation
And you can't get Trump on his charitable donations, as he doesn't have any.
Diverting funds from his own foundation to pay for things that it shouldn't be paying for? Erm, no comment.
You don't seem to have understood it, then. Maybe you should take some of those English lessons that UKIP are so keen on?Nope, I read that too, it's kind of what I mentioned.
Evidence for what? Every man and his dog knows that Soros provides the funds for far left agitators and activists, it all runs through little sub organisations so that it's difficult to directly link him to it. Choose to ignore at your peril.
It was you that brought up black on black crime to try and justify your claim!..
when people were critical of Clinton there was a big fuss saying things like "I thought somebody was presumed innocent until found guilty" but when Stephen Bannon is appointed all that went out of the window and it appears they act like he's guilty despite not being found guilty.
- Status