Roitrn

I disagree. There would be a different conversation in these threads if it were a member of the LBGBTQ being pursued aggressively, yelled profanities at and had to be secluded under police guard for hours until it was safe to leave. Take this case for example: This obvious hate crime was lowered to "misdemeanor destruction of a religious facility". No hate crime no assault for spraying paint in a lady's face. If this same crime was committed any religious institution other than Christian, it would have been a national scandal involving a speech from Biden and long sad story sessions in congress. Pretend all you want. There is a dual standard that extends to almost every corner of US culture.

Fair enough. Just seems like a dual standard and/or acceptance of radicalism/violence depending on the cause or the people doing it. The over all atmosphere of these threads leads me to believe that if this was a left wing activist being shouted down and having to hide for 4 hours from a group of aggressive conservatives, there would be a different discussion. Kind if like how "angry parents" have been discussed in these threads. Void of charges and information.

It is literally on video. However if school board meetings get heated the parents are called "domestic terrorist". She also had to be isolated for 3 hours before she could leave safely. They even tried to extort money for her safety. There is an active effort to ignore and excuse left violence. I wonder if @nursej22 would consider this threating if a group of "angry parents" did this to her daughter a a school board meeting?

Except its not that simple and a disingenuous way to describe parents. Hopefully your daughter called police and they placed charges on the people who made death threats. Did the police open an investigation? Did they charge anyone? I hope so. Most parents are not concerned about LGBTQ. Also, it would be impossible for parents to keep their "snowflakes" from being exposed to "gay/straight alliance club". There's an entire month dedicated to LGBTQ coming up soon. Other than the sensational videos seen on left media and perhaps the bad actors who resorted to death threats, most parents find LGBTQ the least of the issues with these books. In fact, completely insignificant. Most parents do not want their children exposed to sexually graphic material.

Right. Yelling is not a crime. Tell me what's the difference between the behavior of these people and the "angry parents" at school board meetings? Just getting yelled at.

Yes. And I guess I'll never agree with your far left ideology. What to do........? I fully doubt you can understand somethings better than me.

Anything anyone says that doesn't fit your narrative is "right wing hyperbole" by default...... Seems to be a constant trend for you on these threads..... Hmm. Gender and ethnicity? So was it relevant to report that the most recent domestic terrorist attack killing 3 children and 3 adults was a trans-gender person? Didn't you say this part was irrelevant? And tried to suugest that this person's radicalizatiion had nothing to do with her trans-identity other than Christian's probably treated her badly? And once again. I said nothing about the "trans-swimmer".

Like the "Jussie Smollett case". Except there is actual video of her being verbally asulted and if police were not there she would have been physically attacked. They had to take her to another location and wait 3 hours before she could leave safely. Oh and she didn't pay anyone to stage a fake hate crime. Such a false equalency.

Yes. You ascertained most mass shootings are white men to justify the media highlighting this fact. I do not make it a habit of associating anything in regards to race. Unless a story has a clear association that race played a factor. Like a suspected hate crime. The color of a person's skin doesn't commit a crime, the person does. Yes. My sources support my opinion. That's the point.

I never said it wasn't a free or fair election. Is this a non sequitur? I think you misunderstood. I did not say that you should not state and voice your opinions at all. Or your right to voice your opinion on others opinions. I stated that you seem to have an issue with what people believe and what people say. I reminded you that it is their constitutional right, as it is yours. Nether of which is "extremist".

Really? Here's a few examples of media reporting about gun violence in Chicago. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-this-weekend-today-police/12948549/ https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/5/29/23146412/chicago-shootings-memorial-day-weekend https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/chicago-postal-service-mail-carriers-robbed No mention of race of v8ctim or perpetrapltors in any of them. (And so it should be). How does gun violence relate to race?does the gun shoot Unless the media is trying to spin an alternate narrative to "create a picture". No. My media isn't telling me that. I use a variety of sources to establish my opinions. It's not like I check the political learning of every story I read and only read those that are on the right.

No I am not comparing them. I was referring to why certain words were used by the source reporting it. Hyperbolic and dramatic. Right. Because media always waits for all the "facts" before reporting. That's hilarious.

No. You castigated any person who supports Trump , who may or may not believe the 2020 election was fair or stolen or dare to say it outloud. All with the freedom to believe and say what they want in the US. You extend this false label to regular conservatives and Republicans who have different opinions or try and pass laws in their state that you do not agree with. Instead of letting the state government their own law, as designed by the constitution, you refer to them as extremists or fascist. Here is a reminder of why and how states determ their laws. In case you need a refresher: People will vote in a democratic process for officials that share their values and political ideals. So if people in Texas want to "inhibit health care" a disingenuous spin, in your words, then these laws will pass as per the constituents in their state through their vote. There was violence on Jan.6 and the people have been charged and convicted. However many more that day were not violent. Yet people like you refere to them as extremists, or gullable etc. For saying what they want and believe what they want. Both their rights under the US constitution. Yes! Even if you do not agree. Right. You seem to have many friends at many historical events......... I know you are prominent on these threads but I do not think your significant enough to get many hits on Google. Using words like"inhibiting health-care" is disingenuous and misleading. Like it's a blanket restriction on health care in general, not the specific part in which the Texas law refers to. The police have made no arrest yet. However according to you, they do not need to make an arrest. Or go to trial. Or even when they do you do not consider jury verdicts because they are "unpredictable ". A disclaimer for "I'll believe what I want and will interpret evidence that supports my own belief".

The problem isn't with the sex of the offender being stated. It the race of the offender being highlighted when it isn't relevant to the story. Unless there is a direct link between the crime and race, it isn't relevant. Most mass shooting are by white men but most gun related murders involving gang violence in Chicago are by black men. Should that fact be reported on like this? "Black man guns down several people at a convenient store. Police believe it to be gang related"? Everytime? No. That's highlighting the race when it's irrelevant to the crime itself. It's even more bias when there is crime between 2 different races. Unless the races of the individuals are relevant to the crime, there is no reason to state them. Except when media wants to create a narrative... In which they seem to highlight one race and omitt another.

Yes. I agree. This is what I've been trying to say.