CNN...they're not even trying to hide their lies anymore.
- Thread starter Amun Ra
- Start date
OMG so funny...
I think the context is clear. To CNN:
1. Riots are protests
2. Burning businesses and law enforcement buildings is "mostly peaceful"
3. The flames spreading to other buildings is "Fiery"
You have to be literally retarded, less than room temperature IQ, to not parse exactly what that sentence is saying. It's typical CNN manipulation of the story. Remember the email leaks? We weren't supposed to read them because its "privileged" information for "journalists". Yes, I hate to tell you that CNN lied to you twice there. First that leaked information is privileged and second that they're journalists.
Reminds me of a certain book written by a man named Orweil. War is peace, freedom is slavery, 2+2=5, etc. Maybe one day we'll all be like you and finally love big brother.
or...at the time of this reporting, vehicles were set on fire from hooliganism but protests had remained mostly peaceful up to that point.
Only on CNN: vehicles burning (the lot behind him looks like one of the many auto lots burned) are "mostly peaceful". To quote a British leftist, this is just part and parcel of living in America I guess.
You're being absurdly generous. Maybe if they lit a bonfire in the road and sang kumbaya I'd say "fiery but mostly peaceful" is accurate. Maybe a few got too drunk and caused some ruckus. Still, "fiery but mostly peaceful" might be accurate. Lighting other people's property on fire is not peaceful. I didn't know this was even a partisan view - lol.
By this account the LA riots were "fiery but mostly peaceful" as well. Maybe all the people concerned about their property just don't understand what this new definition of "mostly peaceful" is.
@Amun Ra @FortuneTeller @gaussian
I can't believe there has been so much debate on this simple concept ... wait ... yes I can. @Here4money was clear in his response ... but I'll try to simplify it even further.
Simplified:
Suppose the protesters and rioters left and went home, but fires were still burning from earlier non-peaceful protests?. Then would the protests be peaceful ... over ... non-existent? How should CNN characterize them in this scenario?
Suppose the protesters and previous rioters were peacefully protesting, but fires were still burning from earlier non-peaceful protests? Now, are the protesters peacefully protesting? How should CNN characterize them in this scenario?
Further Simplified:
If the rioters (protesters are not the same as rioters), themselves, are currently peaceful, and aren't currently starting fires, and aren't currently looting, and aren't currently being non-peaceful, then they are mostly peaceful.
Obviously, everyone can see fires in the background.
As sad as it would be, I hope you guys were being intentionally obtuse.
I can't believe there has been so much debate on this simple concept ... wait ... yes I can. @Here4money was clear in his response ... but I'll try to simplify it even further.
Simplified:
Suppose the protesters and rioters left and went home, but fires were still burning from earlier non-peaceful protests?. Then would the protests be peaceful ... over ... non-existent? How should CNN characterize them in this scenario?
Suppose the protesters and previous rioters were peacefully protesting, but fires were still burning from earlier non-peaceful protests? Now, are the protesters peacefully protesting? How should CNN characterize them in this scenario?
Further Simplified:
If the rioters (protesters are not the same as rioters), themselves, are currently peaceful, and aren't currently starting fires, and aren't currently looting, and aren't currently being non-peaceful, then they are mostly peaceful.
Obviously, everyone can see fires in the background.
As sad as it would be, I hope you guys were being intentionally obtuse.