ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 11 of 12
« First < 7891011 12 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Pocahontas: “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer”
Prison Bitch 05:24 PM 08-09-2019
Can she be sued for slander?





Elizabeth Warren
@ewarren


5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
1:59 PM · Aug 9, 2019·Twitter Web App

2.4K Retweets12.4K Likes

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewarren/s...02078103445507

[Reply]
Prison Bitch 10:18 PM 08-12-2019
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
:-)

You are trying way too hard BL, its inarguable Nicole Brown was murdered, its arguable WHO did it.

Its inarguable Mike Brown was not murdered given the evidence.
Weird how Oj was charged with murder but not Wilson. Something fishy must be going on :-)
[Reply]
Otter 10:25 PM 08-12-2019
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Yeah this stuff bothers me. but again. both sides do it and the lemmings that fight for one side without regard to the truth are 90% of the population.

There have been many police shootings of black men that were unjustified. Many. This was not one of them. Michael Brown, by all accounts, was a piece of shit. There was ample evidence he did charge the police, that he did not comply with the police, he robbed a store, and treated the clerk in a menacing fashion. There was every reason for the police to apprehend him and be cautious doing so. There are many witnesses that supported the police officers version events.

There are WAAAAY more other cases to use other than this one, if you want to cite your cause about police brutality or racist police. This one shouldn't have gotten as publicized as it was. People just say "WHITE COP SHOOTS BLACK CHILD (ACTUALLY MAN)" and that headline gets people lit. What matters is the facts, not the OPTICS or EMOTIONS.
  1. He's black
  2. He's dead
  3. He can't defend himself
  4. People with a conscience and a soul don't use dead people as their own personal toilet paper
  5. RACIST!!!!

This is a scumball libtards wet dream. They have no soul only agenda.
[Reply]
Flying High D 11:52 AM 08-13-2019
OJ killed Michael Brown?
[Reply]
Marcellus 12:40 PM 08-13-2019
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
It's both sides fault and it's never going to change because neither side wants to take blame.
Sorry I do not agree at all. I am not saying the right is 100% without blame but the very vast majority of divisiveness in this country is driven by lies pushed by the left.
[Reply]
Bowser 12:42 PM 08-13-2019
Originally Posted by Flying High D:
OJ killed Michael Brown?
Someone call Mueller with this information!
[Reply]
Flying High D 04:17 PM 08-13-2019
That Juice is killing MFer
[Reply]
warrior 04:32 PM 08-13-2019
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Hey look, rodeopanties finally tells the truth!
There's a first time for everyone- next maybe she'll get laid :-)
[Reply]
threebag02 03:22 AM 08-14-2019
A couple loads of white privilege might be just what the Dr. ordered.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 04:33 AM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Trump welcoming it and encouraging it, to the extent that he did, isn't relevant either. I don't know what "responsive to it" means in this context.
It means they crafted campaign tactics designed to capitalize on the russian interference / wikileaks stolen data. And it's insane that you think a presidential candidate openly welcome and encouraging an attack on our country "isn't relevant."

Originally Posted by :
I've invited you to raise the most serious obstruction allegation raised by the report to discuss at which time I'd be glad to read that section of the report, but you've refused.
I have, several times. Not sure why you continue to lie about this. But more importantly, why do you feel entitled to have me point you to one specific spot in the report. Understanding the context requires reading the report, and if you're not willing to do than then I shouldn't bother taking seriously your opinion on the matter.
[Reply]
patteeu 04:56 AM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It means they crafted campaign tactics designed to capitalize on the russian interference / wikileaks stolen data. And it's insane that you think a presidential candidate openly welcome and encouraging an attack on our country "isn't relevant."
“Relevant” has an actual meaning, not just the emotional impact you take from it. These things have no relevance to a criminal conspiracy or partnership with the Russians, aka “collusion”. And as you know, since you read the report, there was no such collusion.

Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
I have, several times. Not sure why you continue to lie about this. But more importantly, why do you feel entitled to have me point you to one specific spot in the report. Understanding the context requires reading the report, and if you're not willing to do than then I shouldn't bother taking seriously your opinion on the matter.
I don’t really mind you dodging the issue. I get that you’re in over your head a little bit with this stuff. But to falsely suggest that I’m the one lying about your reticence, is pretty offensive.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 05:05 AM 08-14-2019
I've literally called out the 3 (of the 10) instances of obstruction I felt were most egregious in a previous post, shortly after I finished reading the report.
[Reply]
patteeu 05:29 AM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
I've literally called out the 3 (of the 10) instances of obstruction I felt were most egregious in a previous post, shortly after I finished reading the report.
3 is different than 1, right? Why can’t you narrow the focus?
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 05:42 AM 08-14-2019
lol
[Reply]
seamonster 05:55 AM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It means they crafted campaign tactics designed to capitalize on the russian interference / wikileaks stolen data. And it's insane that you think a presidential candidate openly welcome and encouraging an attack on our country "isn't relevant."



I have, several times. Not sure why you continue to lie about this. But more importantly, why do you feel entitled to have me point you to one specific spot in the report. Understanding the context requires reading the report, and if you're not willing to do than then I shouldn't bother taking seriously your opinion on the matter.
Occams-razor...You know, and EVERYBODY KNOWS, that some radicalized socialist walked out of the DNC with the data because Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries. There's never been any evidence the Russians hacked the DNC.

Bruce Shneider: No Attribution- Evidence Given by US Gov that Russia Hacked DNC
[Reply]
rabblerouser 06:05 AM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Occams-razor...You know, and EVERYBODY KNOWS, that some radicalized socialist walked out of the DNC with the data because Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries. There's never been any evidence the Russians hacked the DNC.

Bruce Shneider: No Attribution- Evidence Given by US Gov that Russia Hacked DNC
This. So much this.
[Reply]
Page 11 of 12
« First < 7891011 12 >
Up