The USPP said that no teargas was used, by them or anyone else, in Lafayette.
They’re not partisan hacks. I’m sure most of them served during the previous administration.
The “teargas” meme is a LIE.
And yet, people are repeating the lie.
Should you be avoiding the question?
Wait…just because they denied it, yet there are victims and eyewitnesses, everyone BUT the people denying it are lying?
They are lying by omission, it is that simple. their cover is just how the things are labeled.
Again, just a fig leaf.
As it was pointed before, gas that has the same results as tear gas was used. the lie is coming from the authorities and the denial has to be harped so as to not deal with the real bad thing that took place, the administration is ignoring their constitutional duty of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Reported.
Just to be clear, I’m not calling posters liars, I was referring to pundits in the media.
What reason would the USPP have to lie?
Unfortunately I did not pointed at just pundits:
This was linked at in the Forbes article:
To expand more here is USA Today:
Unfortunately for you I did not point at just pundits:
This was linked at in the Forbes article:
To expand more here is USA Today:
Just a technicality, but unlike the memes this was the worst kind of a technically correct statement I have seen. (And even the meme was a parody of how bureaucracies do lie.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/48a9bw/why_is_technically_correct_the_best_kind_of/
And so what I point out is why in the end is a lie by omission, OC gas is used as an alternative to old fashion tear gas, with very similar results. **It is a Riot Control Agent that was used not to stop a riot, but to remove the innocent and the religious people that had the right to stay in the premises. **
Correct. For those not in the know, “OC gas” and the common “tear gas” are different things chemically, but have the same effect: extreme pain in the eyes, and respiratory difficulty. “Tear gas” is commonly mace (there are different kinds chemically, but “mace” is a nice catchall term) in gas form, and “OC gas” is pepper spray in gas form. I’m no physician or chemist, but from what I’ve learned about these substances, Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, whose remarks GIGObuster posted and linked upthread, is absolutely correct: “Johnson-Arbor said she probably would be unable to tell the difference if one or the other was used on her.”
I had to learn a little about OC (in case you’re interested, that stands for oleoresin capsicum) spray when I interviewed clients at the local jail. Some were in for violent offenses, and in such cases, were often handcuffed, with an officer standing outside the door. As was the inmates’s right, we were discussing his legal matters in private with the door closed, but if things went wrong, I was to hit the big red panic button on the wall, and then the floor, in that order. The officers explained that they would come in with OC spray, and that I needed to protect my eyes and nose with my arms, while I hunkered down on the floor. They explained that it had the same effect as what is commonly known as tear gas, but that they would still have to decontaminate me later. Thankfully, nothing of the sort ever happened.
If the protesters in Washington were not hit with what is commonly known as “tear gas,” which can be made chemically; but instead, hit with with OC gas, which is derived from common hot peppers of the genus Capsicum; then since both substances have the same effect, which has been attested to by Dr. Johnson-Arbor, I’d conclude that chemistry and sources and derivations don’t matter: the protesters were tear-gassed.
Say for a moment this is a distinction with a difference and the media incorrectly or deliberately used the wrong terminology. What moral victory do you claim and celebrate given that the resulting actions, as ordered by the Trump Administration, were to forcibly evict a peaceful protest in the interest of a banana-republic-like photo op? Would you also insist on making a “factual” distinction on the composition of the batons used to beat protesters if the reports said wood but in fact they were composite material?
Is there no self-reflective part of you that recognizes your argument to be a trifling distraction from the far larger, far more important conversation?
That’s the whole intent.
That’s D’Anconia’s entire argument (and posting history, for that matter) laid bare. He should reflect on that. Or at minimum be painfully aware that everyone else sees it for what it is.
They lied because they fucked up and it looks terrible that they used tear gas on priests in order to get a photo op for the president. They also lied when they said the crowd was violent.
Here’s the definition of tear gas:
The first definition is the verb (“to use tear gas on”). The second definition is:
Please stop spreading the lie that tear gas wasn’t used. I’m not saying you’re lying, I’m saying you’ve been lied to and are spreading that misinformation because you didn’t realize it.
Thanks. I expect a reply to this, probably an apology of some sort.
Back to the OP, this photo op seems to have really shook up the establishment. I don’t understand why this particular outrage is what’s doing it (I didn’t understand why the Ukraine call in particular was the one that precipitated the impeachment), but maybe this will turn the tide when it comes to the religious right.
Trump trampled on the First Amendment right to assembly, and shat on the establishment clause (although didn’t violate it, I guess) in order to get a stupid picture of himself holding a bible like it’s some icky thing he found on the street.
What if he suddenly gets very busy and forgets to return?
As noted the real discussion should be about how this pandering should be seen as the reprehensible thing it was, and this here is not just coming from former members of the administration like Mattis, here is Mike Mullen, Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff :
I would, indeed, be shocked by that development. I’d probably use the following emoji:
:eek:
It’s not getting as much notice because no peaceful protesters were forcibly dispersed, but Trump (plus Melania) made an equally awkward, equally blatant pandering visit to a Catholic shrine to Pope John Paul II. I guess he wanted to make sure that Catholics didn’t feel left out.
The visit is mostly being noticed for Melania’s feeble attempt to smile on command.
Maybe he should have offered her a nummy treat.