You choose to interpret it in the way that fits your narrative.
Then the same logic would apply that you choose to interpret what I am interpreting as an interpretation and not fact. As I said the comentators agreed with myself because its obvious. I just gave you examples of her history of pushing these kinds of lies.
Yes, but YOU said:
She never alleged that, it is your interpretation.
So once again it comes down to words. Like "later". Now its the word "presense". This is the problem that its reduced to word meanings and everything else is dismissed. I just gave you ample examples of her supporting these kinds of falsehoods. She, like Waltz and Frey have been promoting antagonistic narratives.
The commentators are referencing the same article that I referenced. The educator that got involved believed ICE were on school property.
Which educator. Are we talking about the same video. I am talking about this video where the commentators point out the Lt governors falsehoods. It says it in the heading. They agree she lied.
Minnesota's Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan continues to stoke fear with a lie about ICE using teargas on students at a Minnesota high school.
Minnesota's Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan continues to stoke fear with a lie about ICE using teargas on students at a Minnesota high school. Here's the reality...
www.facebook.com
Education Minnesota yes, but not the witnesses.
Then why did you post it.
It is exactly on track as it exposes the fundemental radicalism underpinning the rising up of violnce against the authority.
If you wish to argue for something that general we are going to have to take it in another thread.
So you think other violent political attacks is not coming from the same radicalism behind the violent uprising with immigration. It seems to me the level of anger and violence far exceeds this issue alone. Theres always this addition of stopping the Nazis or Trump who is destroying democracy ect.
Why, pepper spray is normally used in direct 1 on 1 encounters, in contrast to tear gas?
Yes so the implication is either they sprayed in the face of students in a one on one situation. Had to be close. Or they used tear gas in the presense of students. Which disperses over a wide area. Either way its a falsehood.
Do you have those officers statements?
This is still being investigated I think. The point being once again we will have to wait and see. But obviously the actual evidence from the officers involved always clarifies things. Like it always has.
Do you have any particular reason to believe these witnesses to be armchair critics?
Because the are doing amateur investigation from the sidelines without being professionals or having all the intel. Its ok that they give their version. But don't make out that this is the truth. Its just a subjective and limited perspective from a distance.
Yes but the problem is that some radicals make their version the truth over the law officers. Who should be held in higher regard. They specifically swear an oath to uphold Rule of Law and the truth and have earned that respect.
Whereas fly by night agitators swear by nothing. Will lie and twist to discredit authority to win the war. Its in their MO. The fact is they break the law to make their point while accusing law officers of breaking the law. They already discredit themselves.
Did you hear Bovino's and Noem's statement about Alex Pretti?
Taken from here:
Video Analyses at Odds with DHS Statements on Minneapolis Shooting - FactCheck.org
""In separate press conferences the same day,
Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander in charge of the immigration operation in Minneapolis, and DHS Secretary
Kristi Noem made similar statements, using much of the DHS language, including the speculation that Pretti wanted to “kill” (Noem’s wording) or “massacre” (Bovino’s) law enforcement officers.
“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” Bovino said."
Yes so far based on the evidence. He came to an already volitile situation with a loaded gun and enough amo to mass murder. He then went up to the officers and agitated them.
Anyone in their right mind who is going to s supposed peaceful protest with a loaded 9mm automatic rapid rife pistol and two fully loaded magazines of bullets is looking for trouble. It is exactly the same as taking a petrol can full of petrol to a fire.
So it seems officials are actively trying to shape the narrative in their favor.
No just stating the facts. Stop trying to make out these agitators are innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time. He came prepared and looking for trouble.
Why should I believe the officers more than the witnesses?
Because like priests they swear to a higher good and honesty. That is part of their job description. Whereas agitators have no higher code to swear by or one that will destroy their job and career if they breach it. Thats why. There should be respected for this office and it seems agitators dont give a damn for this.
This is a paragraph from this article
https://www.startribune.com/what-ha...t-minneapolis-roosevelt-high-school/601561137
"
Witnesses had a different account. Two Roosevelt parents, Jennifer Newberg and Erica Mellum, both said they saw agents tackle, pepper spray and handcuff people. The statewide teachers union, Education Minnesota, condemned the “unjust detention” of an educator and said agents pepper spraying students, calling it “unconscionable in a civil society.”
Mellum said the educator was trying to explain to agents that they were on school property."
When I talk about what the witnesses said I'm referencing the parts in bold, as you can see they both start and end that paragraph and since I think it wrong to cut up quotes, the middle part is there. It should be clear from the text that "Education Minnesota" as an organisation is not a witness. How would that even work?
I don't know and I don't really care anymore. This is really another version of other examples where she said and he said goes round and round. All I can say is even the sections you embolden are quote mines from a bigger picture. When it says for example "
the educator was trying to explain to agents that they were on school property".
It leaves out a lot. What else did the educator say. I am sure if he got into a struggle and was resisting then he has said something else. But hey they leave that part out don't they.
Its a never ending game of cat and mouse. Tell only part of the story, frame it in a way that makes out ICE are the bad guys. Its the same old MO.
They don't have any more credibility than you or me, why should I take their word for anything.
The point was you claimed that I was wrong in interpreting the Lt governors meaning. But here we have independent people agreeing on her meaning. Because its obvious.
You put it in context with all her other lies and this is just how she conducts herself. She is an activist who pushes a divisive and false narrative.
Tear gas is a much more potent irritant, which higher probabilities for irritation of the airways. Pepper spray is safer and arguably more effective for 1 on 1 encounters.
Ok so ICE fired tear gas in the presense of students thus gassing them.
You do realise that it was not the lt governor that wrote the caption. Why would you repost the caption when it is clearly wrong, they are the ones that use the word tear gas not the lt governor. The one writing the caption is the one lying.
Getting the chemical agent wrong is not getting it wrong that she was spreading falsehoods. Which we all agreed on.
If you are going to tell me what she said you can't post some other's heading.
Change the tear gas to whatever chemical agent you want or what she implied and then the rest is correct. She promoted a false narrative which contributes to inflaiming the situation.
Do I need to remind you she is quite happy to accommodate radicals who want to barricade cities in some uprising and arrest ICE officers. Just as Waltz was promoting. Just as all the leaders were in these sanctuary cities and States. This is well known and it was almost stamdardised policy.
But it looks like Waltz has finally come to his senses and will work with Trump. As the rest of the nation has been doing.
So?
I asked you before if she had posted the things you linked. Now, you seem to say that it wasn't her?
She does not need to post them. She hosts the posts. Thats enough to host such radical stuff on your Facebook. I would be telling those radical to go away and have nothing to do with them. It also suggests she is attracting such radicals.
So charge those who do that with obstruction, I have no problem with that.
I think they are now. They are now investing sophisticated setups organised to dox agents so they are put in danger and to subvert law enforcement. More will come out. But it shows the level of organised radicalism involved.
If people want to protest it is their right. If it becomes obstruction they can charge them with it. Is there any particular reason for which words you capitalize?
I think ICE has been very soft on prosecuting people. Which shows they are not so bad. It should not be that we have to keep arr4esting protestors who break the law. How about not breaking the law in the first place and having proper peaceful protest.
en.wikipedia.org
