On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> shawn
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>
>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>
>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on Jan6th
>>>
>>>
>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>
>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>
> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
> valid form of protest.
> ...

"Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?

On 4/17/2022 3:52 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 9:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free
>>>>>>>>> reign
>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened
>>>>>>> on Jan6th
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6.  It was bent on
>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>
>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was
>>>> the New
>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> "Justified"?  Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>
>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does
>> not.
>
>
> Prove it.  I would expect they're just looking to publish something that
> is well written and readable to their readers.  Hey, here's a thought:
> before pulling shit out of your ass like you do, do the research first
> you mentally lazy asshole:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/insider/opinion-op-ed-explainer.html
>
> The Op-Ed Pages, Explained
>
> "The Opinion section operates editorially independently from the rest of
> the newspaper. It is the section’s unique mission both to be the voice
> of The Times, and to challenge it. The Op-Ed pages were born, in part,
> because of the closing of New York’s top conservative newspaper, The New
> York Herald Tribune. They were created to be opposite the editorial
> pages — and not just physically."
> ...

Thanks for digging. From experience, I'd assume WaPo does the same.

On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on Jan6th
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>
>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>> valid form of protest.
>>> ...
>>
>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>
> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does not.

And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational) basis
to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".

On 4/17/2022 10:31 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 3:52 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 9:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free
>>>>>>>>>> reign
>>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened
>>>>>>>> on Jan6th
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6.  It was
>>>>>>> bent on
>>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal
>>>>>> BLM
>>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was
>>>>> the New
>>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Justified"?  Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion*
>>>> piece?
>>>
>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it
>>> does not.
>>
>>
>> Prove it.  I would expect they're just looking to publish something
>> that is well written and readable to their readers.  Hey, here's a
>> thought: before pulling shit out of your ass like you do, do the
>> research first you mentally lazy asshole:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/insider/opinion-op-ed-explainer.html
>>
>> The Op-Ed Pages, Explained
>>
>> "The Opinion section operates editorially independently from the rest
>> of the newspaper. It is the section’s unique mission both to be the
>> voice of The Times, and to challenge it. The Op-Ed pages were born, in
>> part, because of the closing of New York’s top conservative newspaper,
>> The New York Herald Tribune. They were created to be opposite the
>> editorial pages — and not just physically."
>> ...
>
> Thanks for digging.  From experience, I'd assume WaPo does the same.

Derp was overwhelmed mentally; someone had to help him out.

On 4/17/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <mvW6K.423147$iK66.242836@fx46.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on
>>>>>>>> Jan6th
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
>>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>>
>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does not.
>>
>> And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational) basis
>> to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".
>
> Uh-huh. Sure.

Well, you've got me there. How can anyone not defer to "Sure."...

But, for us novices, how *would* the Times state and discharge a policy
of *actually* publishing occasional controversial counter-opinion? How
would *that* look different from the obvious charade we see now?

On 4/17/2022 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2022 at 3:02:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <mvW6K.423147$iK66.242836@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on
>>>>>>>>>> Jan6th
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>>>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
>>>>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does not.
>>>>
>>>> And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational) basis
>>>> to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".
>>>
>>> Uh-huh. Sure.
>>
>> Well, you've got me there. How can anyone not defer to "Sure."...
>>
>> But, for us novices, how *would* the Times state and discharge a policy
>> of *actually* publishing occasional controversial counter-opinion? How
>> would *that* look different from the obvious charade we see now?
>
> Would the Times even consider publishing an op-ed from a Klan Grand Dragon
> titled, "Slavery: Those Blacks Deserved It"?

They'd likely think it more offensive and incendiary than informative.

On 4/17/2022 8:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Yj17K.430837$t2Bb.390423@fx98.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2022 at 3:02:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <mvW6K.423147$iK66.242836@fx46.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reign to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>> on Jan6th
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was
>>>>>>>>>>> bent on death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those
>>>>>>>>>> people caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal
>>>>>>>>>> BLM protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington
>>>>>>>>> Post-- justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was
>>>>>>>>> the New York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it
>>>>>>>>> as a valid form of protest.
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion*
>>>>>>>> piece?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it
>>>>>>> does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational)
>>>>>> basis to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh-huh. Sure.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you've got me there. How can anyone not defer to "Sure."...
>>>>
>>>> But, for us novices, how *would* the Times state and discharge a policy
>>>> of *actually* publishing occasional controversial counter-opinion? How
>>>> would *that* look different from the obvious charade we see now?
>>>
>>> Would the Times even consider publishing an op-ed from a Klan Grand Dragon
>>> titled, "Slavery: Those Blacks Deserved It"?
>>
>> They'd likely think it more offensive and incendiary than informative.
>
> Which is a way of dodging around the answer: No, they wouldn't.

....which is the same "answer" I gave, but with less detail.

On 4/17/2022 10:37 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free
>>>>>>>>> reign
>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened
>>>>>>> on Jan6th
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6.  It was bent on
>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>
>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was
>>>> the New
>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> "Justified"?  Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>
>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does
>> not.
>
> And each such opinion is its author's.  So, you have no (rational) basis
> to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".

Maybe Derp can't even fathom what "Op Ed" means.

On 4/17/2022 2:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <mvW6K.423147$iK66.242836@fx46.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on
>>>>>>>> Jan6th
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
>>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>>
>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does not.
>>
>> And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational) basis
>> to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".
>
> Uh-huh. Sure.

Translation: "Derp."

On 4/17/2022 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2022 at 3:02:37 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <mvW6K.423147$iK66.242836@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:26:33 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <49cc48ec-0f9b-43f8-baf3-f6ff62fa33fbn@googlegroups.com>, Ed
>>>>>>>>> Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> shawn
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, when Twitter/Reddit/Facebook allowed the Dems free reign
>>>>>>>>>>>> to rile up a crowdŠ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know you know better than this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/qBjJ1C2p/465465.jpg
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/7KprXfQ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The BLM/ANTIFA riots were FAR worse then anything that happened on
>>>>>>>>>> Jan6th
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The seat of government was stormed by a mob on Jan 6. It was bent on
>>>>>>>>> death and destruction. Please tell us what's FAR worse than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect the answer will be the amount of destruction those people
>>>>>>>> caused. I look at it as other people taking advantage of the legal BLM
>>>>>>>> protests to get some revenge or steal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
>>>>>>> justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New
>>>>>>> York Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a
>>>>>>> valid form of protest.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Justified"? Wasn't that NYTimes article explicitly an *opinion* piece?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Times decides which opinions it wants to amplify and which it does not.
>>>>
>>>> And each such opinion is its author's. So, you have no (rational) basis
>>>> to claim the Times "justified looting as a valid form of protest".
>>>
>>> Uh-huh. Sure.
>>
>> Well, you've got me there. How can anyone not defer to "Sure."...
>>
>> But, for us novices, how *would* the Times state and discharge a policy
>> of *actually* publishing occasional controversial counter-opinion? How
>> would *that* look different from the obvious charade we see now?
>
> Would the Times even consider publishing an op-ed from a Klan Grand Dragon
> titled, "Slavery: Those Blacks Deserved It"?

So in your piece of shit brain you think the Klan has something to say
ever? And yet you don't have the balls to admit you're a white
supremacist? What a lame asshole you turned out to be.