• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Excellent


  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New England Patriots

Recent Profile Visitors

4,335 profile views
  1. Agree to disagree on trump continuing Obama policy; how has trump been different from the first 7 1/2 years of the obama admin, reset, red line etc?. Imho Obama clearly tried to be buddy buddy with putin pretty much right until the end when he decided it was in "his" best interest not to be. You remember Obamas ("This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility" comments to putin, right?) Maybe trump will cower and give it all away to putin like obama did, but I dont think he will and I don't think it is fair to crucify him in advance. Thank u for the exchange, ill be checking out for a while shortly (trip).
  2. No your not "pointing out" out anything, you are making ridiculously false equivalency's between trump continuing obama/clinton/reid/schumer/pelosi US policy toward russia and the nyt covering up the death of millions for ideological reasons; it is absolutely ludicrous. You also insist on making a false equivalency between putin and stalin. Both are certainly bad guys, but one horrific bad guy is responsible for many, many millions of deaths (the one durranty and the NYT knowingly, falsely praised) and one isn't. Your implying that they are anywhere near the same is preposterous. The argument is absurd and i don't have the time to waste on it any longer.
  3. Trump has been a politician for less than 2 years and potus less than 2 months; imho you are being hysterical over basically nothing. Obama and Clinton have been buddy buddy with putin virtually their entire administration and you want to crucify trump for basically continuing us policy, i just don't get the hysterics. The reset, the uranium, crimea, assad, chemical weapons, red lines, the funding of irans nuclear program etc and your big concern is 2 months in office trump hasn't condemned putin? Obama has praised and enabled putin for 8 years and i think trump deserves a little more than 2 months in office.
  4. Again, the afc stuff is silly nonsense (imho) that has nothing to do with anything were talking about. Your not accusing trump of something? Haha, you are trying (unconvincingly) to smear him with all this meaningless afc stuff. Yes, trump is an america first guy, so what, that doesn't make him the afc or lindbergh or lindberghs baby. Lets agree to disagree that the afc and the nyt times knowingly ignoring and printing lies about soviet genocide are anything like each other or pertinent to the discussion and move on.
  5. No, we cannot say that the afc was the same as the newspaper of record (alleged journalists) knowingly, repeatedly lying about millions dying. It’s a ridiculous claim for you to make so please give it a rest, they are not the same. Concede what? What banner is trump supposedly carrying? You want to make him out to be the devil incarnate when he has been in the office 40 days. All these bad things you say about Putin, you understand that Obama and Hillary have some responsibility while trump has zero. You do concede that point, right? You want to demagogue trump, demonize him for some comments he has made? Really? You want me to concede that trump has said things regarding putin (and other things) that I do not agree with, sure no problem I concede that point. If you want me to agree that he is all these other ridiculous and hysterically nasty things you want to pin on him, no that is your imaginanation/dislike run wild. He has been in office 40 days all the bad things you listed about putin occurred when barry & hillary were EMBRACING HIM! They ignored the misdeeds and kissed his rear while getting their clocks cleaned. And yet you demonize trump……… its absurd. We both agree that putin is a bad guy, right? We both agree that barry & hillary shouldn’t have been enabling and embracing him for 7 and ¾ years. Right? So trump has pretty much endorsed the same policy we have had with them for 8 years prior and yet you demonize him. Its been 40 days, give him a chance; hillary and barry had 8 years. What actual evidence, instance do you have (specifically), that he has done to get your shorts in such a twist? Let me give you the first one, yes he has inartfully “said” things with regard to putin, America and other things I do not agree with. I would however add that trumps comments pale in comparison to the deeds done and not done during the previous 8 years of the previous admin. No sorry, A. putin isn’t stalin B. trump making offhand remarks pre presidency isn’t worse or in fact anything like the nyt covering up stalins genocide; you are being ridiculous. C. In fact trumps remarks aren’t nearly as bad as the putin action/inaction from barry & Hillary over EIGHT years. D. trumps remarks aren’t as bad as Barry giving (illegally I might add) billions to our enemies in iran who have been killing our soldiers for years and help them, HELP THEM go nuclear. E. trumps remarks aren’t nearly as bad as shamefully trading a deserter for high level terrorist enemies who will undoubtedly kill more of our soldiers. F. trumps words aren't nearly as bad as releasing our enemies (the worst of the worst) from gitmo so they can kill our soldiers again and again and again. G. trumps words aren’t nearly as bad as the aid and comfort obama continually provided to dictatorial/authoritarian regimes enemy or otherwise during his entire administration. H. trumps words aren’t nearly as bad as some of the anti American things barry and many, many other democrats have been saying for years, decades! Hard to deny that trashing America always has been and always will be a favorite past time of the left so spare us the faux outrage.
  6. I gave the one example because it was/is the most horrific and demonstrates the lengths committed progressives will go for their cause. As far as your question I would say it is a silly comparison. Firstly Putin isn't Stalin, (not in the process of killing millions), secondly trump isn't a "journalist" knowingly writing lies for the paper of record while millions are dying. Just curious, did you do a lot of posts when Barak n Hillary did their reset with russia? Gave them all that Uranium? Did nothing about crimea? How about when barak made that debate crack to romney about the 80s wanting their foreign policy back, did you scream that romney was right? Surely you heard of the Clinton Foundation and you made many posts warning about the comically obvious pay for play that was going on. Or did you, like the previous admin (and progressive media) decide that after 8 years of feckless inaction and dereliction of duty decide that with a new admin coming in it was in your best interest to suddenly get hysterical about russia? The whole trump-russia conspiracy rigging the election nonsense is fake news created and propagated by progressives in gov (state, ic, etc) politicians and in the media.
  7. My position is that the nyt has demonstrated the lengths they will go to promote an ideological agenda. Their news is filtered through a progressive prism and often times dishonest.
  8. The organization that mistakenly gave duranty a prize in the first place not revoking it after 71 years when all principals are dead and unable to respond doesn't seem like nearly enough evidence for you to then insist against mountains of evidence to the contrary that he wasn't purposely lying; and yet you do.... I don't care that you have a "low" opinion of duranty, I care about the great lengths you are going in order to defend him and claim he was merely duped by those damn russians. I don't think u actually believe that, i think you likely know what the truth of the matter is (how could u not?) but the truth is inconvenient so you want to ignore it. I was more than willing to address the trump/putin nonsense, but if I can't even get you to acknowledge what is widely accepted as fact (duranty knowingly lied) I can't justify wasting anymore time with you. Your position (in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) is that duranty wasn't a liar, he was merely duped, i am certain he knowingly lied on numerous occasions. We are done here.
  9. The evidence that he intentionally lied is overwhelming and not in dispute. Now that you have made the claim that Duranty simply wasn't aware and merely duped can you show me what if anything (other than wishful thinking) you are basing that opinion on?
  10. With all due respect you miss the point entirely. The point of fact isn't that the socialists in the soviet union duped Duranty and the nyt, the fact is Duranty & nyt knew that millions were dying but their LOVE of socialism precluded them from honestly reporting those facts to the american people. It is not that Stalin lied, its that Duranty and the supposed paper of record nyt will lie for ideological reasons no matter what the cost and its horrendous. As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union. What is so awful about Duranty is that Times top brass suspected that Duranty was writing Stalinist propaganda, but did nothing. In her exposé "Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times's man in Moscow," S.J. Taylor makes it clear that Carr Van Anda, the managing editor, Frederick T. Birchall, an assistant managing editor, and Edwin L. James, the later managing editor, were troubled with Duranty's Moscow reporting but did nothing about it. Birchall recommended that Duranty be replaced but, says Taylor, "the recommendation fell by the wayside."
  11. I don't want to go back and rehash point by point, but I appreciate you making an earnest effort at debate rather than reply with insults like so many others in here (Henry and TF come immediately to mind). We would have been better served had we made sure we understood each others definition of Fake News. I agree that your definition of "Fake News" (websites that are not true journalism sites) can contribute to fake news and could be considered "a" valid definition for the term. However, I believe the FP author, current potus and millions who voted for him have a much broader and imho more accurate definition for the term. When "journalists" report something whether by web, twitter, tv, print etc without proper (or zero) verification it often turns out to be fake/dishonest news. When that fake news is immediately zoomed around the social sphere (IE the world) and amplified it matters little that we later find out after the fact that the report was largely inaccurate or at best highly misleading. Many can't help but notice the abandonment of journalistic standards with regard to the current potus and the death by a thousand cuts of fake/dishonest news meant to undermine him in every way imaginable (both big & small). FWIW progressives, if he is soooo bad and horrible, why do you need to lie and exaggerate so much? When progressives in the IC selectively and appallingly release classified information anonymously for no other reason than to hurt and undermine the duly elected potus that is dishonest news (and treasonous). When NPR reports “House Votes to Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales to the Severely Mentally Ill” That is horrendously fake/dishonest tax payer funded news reporting. I'll gladly take u up on it if u disagree, but u must read this first and we will go from there. When for ideological reasons CBS and Dan Rather fabricated a story about George W Bush in an attempt to hurt his election that was fake/dishonest news (much like the Russia BS now). When for ideological reasons the NYT reports on how well socialism in the soviet union is going while millions are dying, that is fake/dishonest news. When CNN covers up stories of Iraqi atrocities, reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations for more than a decade, that is fake/dishonest news. At any rate I appreciate the exchange and your willingness and ability to engage in debate without resorting to insults because someone doesn't agree with you.
  12. So, by my count there are maybe 2 or 3 examples that don't belong. You seemingly want to absolve the fake/dishonest reporting if it is later corrected at some point while ignoring A. the utter lack of integrity and journalistic standards with regard to the original reporting B. the damage is already done and C. the actual truth is propagated at only a fraction of what the original lie/fake/dishonest stories are. Ftr, I make little distinction between fake news and dishonest news reporting. I had a little time as well, lets let the readers decide. 1. Sorry, this is another example of what can aptly be called fake/dishonest news. A progressive writer from a progressive paper, in this case the ironically named guardian newspaper tweets a fake story which is retweeted 13,000 times but the truth is retweet a mere 7 times. This is an example of the venomous vipers of the left at work and like Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Nevertheless, the claim spread far and wide: Guardian writer and editor-at-large of Out Zach Stafford tweeted the rumor, which was retweeted more than 13,000 times before he deleted it. He later posted a tweet explaining why he deleted his original viral tweet; his explanatory tweet was shared a total of seven times. Meanwhile, PinkNews writer Dominic Preston wrote a report on the rumors, which garnered more than 12,000 shares on Facebook. 6. No there was nothing “honest” about it and even if it were "honest" he didn’t ask for any sort of verification like any real journalist would do. He simply wrote something that fit his narrative. Again, in this day in age his lie is propagated widely while the truth receives scant attention. 7. No it wasn’t an utterly ridiculous analogy, she was making the case that different schools have different needs and rather than soviet style central control of education it is best left to locales and states to determine what is best. What the left wing press did with her statement was dishonest. During her confirmation hearing, education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos was asked whether schools should be able to have guns on their campuses. As NBC News reported, DeVos felt it was “best left to locales and states to decide.” She pointed out that one school in Wyoming had a fence around it to protect the students from wildlife. “I would imagine,” she said, “that there’s probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies.” This was an utterly noncontroversial stance to take. DeVos was simply pointing out that different states and localities have different needs, and attempting to mandate a nationwide one-size-fits-all policy for every American school is imprudent. How did the media run with it? By lying through their teeth. “Betsy DeVos Says Guns Should Be Allowed in Schools. They Might Be Needed to Shoot Grizzlies” (Slate). “Betsy DeVos: Schools May Need Guns to Fight Off Bears” (The Daily Beast). “Citing grizzlies, education nominee says states should determine school gun policies” (CNN). “Betsy DeVos says guns in schools may be necessary to protect students from grizzly bears” (ThinkProgress.) “Betsy DeVos says guns shouldn’t be banned in schools … because grizzly bears” (Vox). “Betsy DeVos tells Senate hearing she supports guns in schools because of grizzly bears” (The Week). “Trump’s Education Pick Cites ‘Potential Grizzlies’ As A Reason To Have Guns In Schools” (BuzzFeed). The intellectual dishonesty at play here is hard to overstate. DeVos never said or even intimated that every American school or even very many of them might need to shoot bears. She merely used one school as an example of the necessity of federalism and as-local-as-possible control of the education system. 8. BS, There is nothing grey about it. The entire premise of his “story” was false and the fact that the Washington post never corrected speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of that paper. On January 26, the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin published what seemed to be a bombshell report declaring that “the State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned.” This resignation, according to Rogin, was “part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” These resignations happened “suddenly” and “unexpectedly.” He styled it as a shocking shake-up of administrative protocol in the State Department, a kind of ad-hoc protest of the Trump administration. The story immediately went sky-high viral. It was shared nearly 60,000 times on Facebook. Rogin himself tweeted the story out and was retweeted a staggering 11,000 times. Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum had it retweeted nearly 2,000 times; journalists and writers from Wired, The Guardian, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, ABC, Foreign Policy, and other publications tweeted the story out in shock. There was just one problem: the story was more a load of bunk. As Vox pointed out, the headline of the piece was highly misleading: “the word ‘management’ strongly implied that all of America’s top diplomats were resigning, which was not the case.” (The Post later changed the word “management” to “administrative” without noting the change, although it left the “management” language intact in the article itself). More importantly, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department, put out a press release noting that “As is standard with every transition, the outgoing administration, in coordination with the incoming one, requested all politically appointed officers submit letters of resignation.” According to CNN, the officials were actually asked to leave by the Trump administration rather than stay on for the customary transitional few months. The entire premise of Rogin’s article was essentially nonexistent. As always, the correction received far less attention than the fake news itself: Vox’s article, for instance, was shared around 9,500 times on Facebook, less than one-sixth the rate of Rogin’s piece. To this day, Rogin’s piece remains uncorrected regarding its faulty presumptions. 9. True, but not before the stupid lie was retweeted and propagated across social media while the truth is ignored. 10. Agreed 11. No sorry, the senior political reporter for CNN reports something negative and fake about the new admin and the fake news is then retweeted more than a thousand times, ill let you guess how many times the truth was retweeted. If that doesn’t qualify as fake news from CNN im not sure what would? Zeleny’s sneering tweet—clearly meant to cast the Trump administration in an unflattering, circus-like light—was shared more than 1,100 times on Twitter. About 30 minutes later, however, he tweeted: “The Twitter accounts…were not set up by the White House, I’ve been told.” As always, the admission of mistake was shared far less than the original fake news: Zeleny’s correction was retweeted a paltry 159 times. 12. Nonsense, you are missing the point, these fake news stories are promoted because progressives want to fulfill a narrative. Like most other sensational news incidents, this one took off, big-time: it was shared countless times on Facebook, not just from the original article itself (123,000 shares) but via secondary reporting outlets such as the Huffington Post (nearly 9,000 shares). Credulous reporters and media personalities shared the story on Twitter to the tune of thousands and thousands of retweets, including: Christopher Hooks, Gideon Resnick, Daniel Dale, Sarah Silverman, Blake Hounshell, Brian Beutler, Garance Franke-Ruta, Keith Olbermann (he got 3,600 retweets on that one!), Matthew Yglesias, and Farhad Manjoo. The story spread so far because it gratified all the biases of the liberal media elite: it proved that Trump’s “Muslim ban” was an evil, racist Hitler-esque mother-killer of an executive order. 13. Well who was their source? Anonymous, oh ok we will go ahead and print it. Yes they reported something they wanted to be true, which later was proved false and yet even that didn’t stop them. The White House later re-affirmed that Trump did not have any plan to “invade Mexico.” Nevertheless, Jon Passantino, the deputy news director of BuzzFeed, shared this story on Twitter with the exclamation “WOW.” He was retweeted 2,700 times. Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, also shared the story, declaring: “I’m sorry, did our president just threaten to invade Mexico today??” Favreau was retweeted more than 8,000 times. Meanwhile, the Yahoo News AP post was shared more than 17,000 times on Facebook; Time’s post of the misleading report was shared more than 66,000 times; ABC News posted the story and it was shared more than 20,000 times. On Twitter, the report—with the false implication that Trump’s comment was serious—was shared by media types such as ThinkProgress’s Judd Legum, the BBC’s Anthony Zurcher, Vox’s Matt Yglesias, Politico’s Shane Goldmacher, comedian Michael Ian Black, and many others. 15. BET wrote the same thing but agreed on a scale of 1-10 it would be pretty low. 16. No the headlines and hysteria were clearly misleading if it isn’t fake news it is most certainly dishonest news. Go ahead and try to defend the NPR headline in light of the facts, you can’t its dishonest. Some headlines were more specific about the actual House vote but no less misleading; “House votes to end rule that prevents people with mental illness from buying guns” (the Independent); “Congress ends background checks for some gun buyers with mental illness” (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette); “House Votes to Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales to the Severely Mentally Ill” (NPR). The hysteria was far-reaching and frenetic. As you might have guessed, all of it was baseless. The House was actually voting to repeal a narrowly tailored rule from the Obama era. This rule mandated that the names of certain individuals who receive Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income and who use a representative to help manage these benefits due to a mental impairment be forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If that sounds confusing, it essentially means that if someone who receives SSDI or SSI needs a third party to manage these benefits due to some sort of mental handicap, then—under the Obama rule—they may have been barred from purchasing a firearm. (It is thus incredibly misleading to suggest that the rule applied in some specific way to the “severely mentally ill.”) As National Review’s Charlie Cooke pointed out, the Obama rule was opposed by the American Association of People With Disabilities; the ACLU; the Arc of the United States; the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network; the Consortium of Citizens With Disabilities; the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery; and many, many other disability advocacy organizations and networks. The media hysteria surrounding the repeal of this rule—the wildly misleading and deceitful headlines, the confused outrage over a vote that nobody understood—was a public disservice. As Cooke wrote: “It is a rare day indeed on which the NRA, the GOP, the ACLU, and America’s mental health groups find themselves in agreement on a question of public policy, but when it happens it should at the very least prompt Americans to ask, ‘Why?’ That so many mainstream outlets tried to cheat them of the opportunity does not bode well for the future.”
  13. Sure they can aptly be termed "free press" but so can hundreds if not thousands of other networks, newspapers and entities in this country not singled out for their dishonesty. You want to categorize him accurately calling left leaning and at times flat out dishonest media entities as some sort of attack on free speech which is of course nonsense. They are free to continue to lie and mischaracterize all they want and others are free to point out their dishonesty as he and many others have. More recent examples of media dishonesty: 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won Early November: Spike in Transgender Suicide Rates November 22: The Tri-State Election Hacking Conspiracy Theory December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure January 20: Nancy Sinatra’s Complaints about the Inaugural Ball January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’ January 20: The Great MLK Jr. Bust Controversy January 20: Betsy DeVos, Grizzly Fighter January 26: The ‘Resignations’ At the State Department January 27: The Photoshopped Hands Affair January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax January 31: The White House-SCOTUS Twitter Mistake January 31: The Big Travel Ban Lie February 1: POTUS Threatens to Invade Mexico February 2: Easing the Russian Sanctions February 2: Renaming Black History Month February 2: The House of Representatives’ Gun Control Measures You can add the non stop over hyped tempest in a teapot russia BS, but that will take time for the facts to show there is nothing there other than left leaning traitors within the IC working in tandem with committed progressive (predominantly) "faux journalists" to politically assassinate the current potus. It is really horrific to see how the left has no qualms using the IRS and IC to destroy its political opponents. It is why so many of us fear socialism and run away progressive government, we know how the movie ends and contrary to Duranty and the NYT it aint pretty.....
  14. Umm, can you show us a quote where he said "free press"? So the fact (truth) of the matter is he lashed out at the fake news coming from certain media entities. Similar to the previous potus - Obama Says Fox Is Entirely Devoted To "Attacking My Administration", June 16, 2009, CNBC's "Closing Bell" - Obama Calls Fox News "Destructive", October 14, 2010, Rolling Stone Magazine I often don't agree with the current potus choice of words and prefer he said enemy of truth (spot on accurate) rather than "enemy of the american people" which of course is true, but a much more bombastic way of putting it. The NY Times is dishonest, always has been and yet it has an enormous (sickening) power to shape and drive the news cycle in this country. So may other papers and news entities take their lead from this dishonest media entity. Their "news" is filtered and shaped to promote their liberal. socialist agenda at all costs. They are the enemy of truth and the founding principles of this country and the american people suffer for it. For instance, while millions were dying here are some examples of "news" that the NYT and pulitzer prize winning reporter (Duranty) fed to the american people and the world on how well socialism was going in the soviet union. "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1 "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."--New York Times, August 23, 1933 "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13 As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union. … Duranty was one of a gaggle of Stalin's intellectual admirers. Muggeridge, whose centennial we celebrate this summer, wrote about them in these lapidary words: Wise old [Bernard]Shaw, high-minded old [Henri]Barbusse, the venerable [Sidney and Beatrice] Webbs, [Andre] Gide the pure in heart and [Pablo] Picasso the impure, down to poor little teachers, crazed clergymen and millionaires, driveling dons and very special correspondents like Duranty, all resolved, come what might, to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook nothing, however villainous, to approve anything, however obscurantist and brutally authoritarian, in order to be able to preserve intact the confident expectation that one of the most thorough-going, ruthless and bloody tyrannies ever to exist on earth could be relied on to champion human freedom, the brotherhood of man, and all the other good liberal causes to which they had dedicated their lives. ("Chronicles of Wasted Time," pages 275- 276.) The NYTs has a socialist/progressive agenda and even when millions die they are not deterred from promoting it. Like so many committed progressives/socialists they are certain of their moral high ground and therefore are quite comfortable with the ends justifying their means no matter what the cost. The NYT is most definitely the enemy of the principles this country was founded on.
  15. Hahaha, U want to argue semantics and Bill Clintonize the left\progressives from the violence, Soros, BLM, the DNC, please stop with the "depends on what the meaning of "is" is" BS. Who cares wtf the label on their underwear says. Reminds me of a scene from Life of Brian Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Progressive People's Front? Reg: #### off! 'Progressive People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Progressives! 'Progressive People's Front sniff'. No, obviously progressives (IE DNC, Democratic party etc) are not responsible for lone nut ball leftist/anarchists who commit crimes and acts of violence. However there is a common thread in much of the violence and mayhem committed by protesters and that is a connection to progressives and their money (Soros etc) in places like berkley, ferguson, baltimore, san jose, chicago etc etc etc etc etc. Whether it is avowed anarchists or avowed progressives (ultimate goal may differ but objectives are often the same) committing the violence is secondary to the fact that it is progressives who are more often than not funding, controlling, enabling and promoting the violence. Call them whatever the f u want henry, but the money and power behind the instigated kos (primarily) is undeniably from leftists/progressives. Soros and BLM (to name just 2 examples) are accepted and funded by modern day progressives (welcome in the democratic party) and yet you want to pretend that the violence and anarchy they often advocate/create (death to cops, hands up don't shoot lie, disregard for the law, destruction of property, violence, thuggery etc) has nothing to do with progressives and the left and that is absurd.