George Soros funded Ferguson riots

[homersapien 11,367]

Remember folks, Snopes is "Weaseling BS," homer said so...lol

Not exactly. I said the statement is weaseling BS. If Snopes meant it as stated, they published a weaseling BS statement.

See the difference there?

[homersapien 11,367]

I don't see anyone defending Soros. I see people defending the truth. And, I see some who wish to demonize Soros as part of their attempt to demonize all things liberal. Casual lying doesn't seem to bother some of you. It should.

Apparently, the conservatives on this forum approach it like talk radio. Except they apparently overlook the key fact that dissenting voices won't be blocked out.

Plus there is the added inconvenience everything is in writing, so they cannot deny the crap they throw out.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

I knew who Soros' defenders would be before I posted. Like clockwork, they defend their own. Those evildoer Tea Partiers and those evildoer Koch brothers are SO MUCH more dangerous...according to many on the left, even much more dangerous to America that AL Qaeda. :nopityA:/>

It is common knowledge that George Soros paid $33 million to bus protesters to Ferguson, Mo. from all over the country and in so doing escalated racial animus in an already extremely tense racial environment. I remember the coverage of the riots and it was reported in many media outlets that most of the looters were from out of town. So, they were all their on their own dime, right? George Soros has to be absolved of any culpability because he is a billionaire democrat benefactor. :hellyeah:/>

Let it be known that the methods of the left simply cannot be questioned because they are on the "right side" of every issue. When the left misbehaves it is OK because it is "known" where their heart "really" is. Criticisms of the right, however, according to those on the left, portrays who they really are. All of it has become so predictable it is expected.

David, you're casting your lot with this guy.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

Did he fund the riots? But, as lawyers would argue he was a contributing factor.

[AUDub 11,147]

Did he fund the riots? But, as lawyers would argue he was a contributing factor.

LOL. Ain't a lawyer in his right mind would make that accusation.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

Did he fund the riots? But, as lawyers would argue he was a contributing factor.

You dont get out much.

LOL. Ain't a lawyer in his right mind would make that accusation.

[AUDub 11,147]

You dont get out much.

Not as much as I used to, what with the whole family life thing going on. My wife and I are getting a date night tomorrow night, though. So there's that.

[homersapien 11,367]

Stating the obvious means you don't get out much??

[DKW 86 7,419]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

[TheBlueVue 177]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

The lefties will not abide even a smidge of culpability being directed @ Geo Soros. I mean, dude's a progressive acitivist. "Everyone" knows he's on the right side of every argument so, it doesn't really matter that his $33 million dollas was, indeed, funneled to those who did the rioting. He didn't personally hand it over to them so he cannot be accused of funding the looting and burning down innocent business people's livelihoods. :-\

[AUDub 11,147]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

The lefties will not abide even a smidge of culpability being directed @ Geo Soros. I mean, dude's a progressive acitivist. "Everyone" knows he's on the right side of every argument so, it doesn't really matter that his $33 million dollas was, indeed, funneled to those who did the rioting. He didn't personally hand it over to them so he cannot be accused of funding the looting and burning down innocent business people's livelihoods. :-\

David, you're casting your lot with this guy.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

Factually incorrect. Why the determination to be deceptive? Do you know the difference between a protester and, a rioter?

[homersapien 11,367]

How much "funding" do rioters need, and for what?

[DKW 86 7,419]

How much "funding" do rioters need, and for what?

You know, molotov cocktails, beer, travel expenses, room and board... ;-)

[DKW 86 7,419]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

Factually incorrect. Why the determination to be deceptive? Do you know the difference between a protester and, a rioter?

So let me get this straight, YOU ARE SAYING THAT SNOPES HAS IT WRONG?

As far as deceptive, i wont call the denials about the obvious deceptive, but i will say there is a lot of willful ignorance from certain posters on this board.

A credible source, one sighted by one of those same posters in this thread, says that Orgs that Soros funded gave money to the protesters.

I am quoting a source yall brought to the table.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

Factually incorrect. Why the determination to be deceptive? Do you know the difference between a protester and, a rioter?

So let me get this straight, YOU ARE SAYING THAT SNOPES HAS IT WRONG?

As far as deceptive, i wont call the denials about the obvious deceptive, but i will say there is a lot of willful ignorance from certain posters on this board.

A credible source, one sighted by one of those same posters in this thread, says that Orgs that Soros funded gave money to the protesters.

I am quoting a source yall brought to the table.

If you use "protesters" and "rioters" interchangeably, then you are being deceptive. That is not willful ignorance, it is lying.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

Stating the obvious means you don't get out much?? :dunno:/>

Lawsuits are coming and the attorneys will name everyone they can to get the maximum amount of money, I think shop owners (or their insurance company) will sue the City of Ferguson for not protecting their property. Not saying its right its just the way the World works.

[AUDub 11,147]

L

Stating the obvious means you don't get out much?? :dunno:/>

Lawsuits are coming and the attorneys will name everyone they can to get the maximum amount of money, I think shop owners (or their insurance company) will sue the City of Ferguson for not protecting their property. Not saying its right its just the way the World works.

Maybe so, but the only attortneys that would name Soros as a contributor to the riots in their lawsuits are the loons. As I said, no attorney in his right mind.

[homersapien 11,367]

As the article linked on snopes says: Soros did not DIRECTLY fund the riots, BUT several orgs he does fund DID. The weaseling here is that you folks are denying a softballed quid pro quo. Did Soros hand the money to the protesters? No. Did Soros' money fund them? I think it is obvious to even the most casual observer where the funds came from. $33M? i dont know about that. These orgs are built for one reason: plausible deniability. That is their function in DC.

Factually incorrect. Why the determination to be deceptive? Do you know the difference between a protester and, a rioter?

So let me get this straight, YOU ARE SAYING THAT SNOPES HAS IT WRONG?

As far as deceptive, i wont call the denials about the obvious deceptive, but i will say there is a lot of willful ignorance from certain posters on this board.

A credible source, one sighted by one of those same posters in this thread, says that Orgs that Soros funded gave money to the protesters.

I am quoting a source yall brought to the table.

If you use "protesters" and "rioters" interchangeably, then you are being deceptive. That is not willful ignorance, it is lying.

And he's perfectly aware of that which makes it weaseling.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

Limiting liability consumes a lot of both government agencies and private sector working hours, lawyers do not think like we do trust me some are quite creative in bringing lawsuits that to ordinary people are ridiculous , why because insurance companies will settle instead of investing money for a defense and rolling the dice with a jury's decision. But, this is way off topic.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Limiting liability consumes a lot of both government agencies and private sector working hours, lawyers do not think like we do trust me some are quite creative in bringing lawsuits that to ordinary people are ridiculous , why because insurance companies will settle instead of investing money for a defense and rolling the dice with a jury's decision. But, this is way off topic.

I think you are correct. Look at the recent lawsuit brought against the airlines by the leaseholder of the World Trade Towers.

[AUDub 11,147]

Limiting liability consumes a lot of both government agencies and private sector working hours, lawyers do not think like we do trust me some are quite creative in bringing lawsuits that to ordinary people are ridiculous , why because insurance companies will settle instead of investing money for a defense and rolling the dice with a jury's decision. But, this is way off topic.

I think you are correct. Look at the recent lawsuit brought against the airlines by the leaseholder of the World Trade Towers.

Let's take a wait and see approach and see if Soros is named in any suits.

[DKW 86 7,419]

So who was it that is to blame for the rioting? The Rioters only, or the protesters that inflamed the rioters? Seems to me yall are the ones blatantly stretching definitions and rewriting words so as to not make the obvious conclusion. Did Soros fund them directly? No. Did his money end up funding them indirectly? Yes. No doubt.

Exactly when does a protester become a rioter? When he shouts: "burn this beyotch down?" No one ever accused the step dad of rioting, but he certainly was a protester and certainly did incite the rioters.

Just in case you missed it.

http://newsone.com/3...clarke-sheriff/

Conservative Black Sheriff Applauds DOJ Darren Wilson Decision, Slams Rights Leaders

A day after it was announced that the U.S. Department of Justice is unlikely to pursue a civil rights case against ex-Ferguson, Mo., Officer Darren Wilson, a Black conservative sheriff David Clarke(pictured) has applauded the decision and slammed civil rights leaders in a Fox News interview, according Mediaite.

RELATED: Report: No Federal Charges To Be Filed Against Darren Wilson In Death Of Michael Brown

Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke told “Fox & Friends” Thursday that the decision not to pursue a civil rights case against Wilson was vindication for the officer and an indictment against “race hustlers” like U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Rev. Al Sharpton:

“The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Clarke said. “Officer Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?”

But Clarke reserved much of his ire for Sharpton.

“I don’t expect anything intelligent to come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton,” Clarke said. “We know he is a charlatan. Al Sharpton ought to go back in to the gutter he came from. The police officer is owed a lot from him, Eric Holder, and the President of the United States.

http://newsone.com/3...rights-charges/

Report: No Federal Charges To Be Filed Against Darren Wilson In Death Of Michael Brown

After a grand jury decided not to indict former Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson in the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, many hoped that at least civil rights charges might be filed by the Department of Justice. Wednesday afternoon the New York Times reported that won’t happen either:

The Justice Department has begun work on a legal memo recommending no civil rights charges against a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., who killed an unarmed black teenager in August, law enforcement officials said.

That would close the politically charged case in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The investigation by the F.B.I., which is complete, found no evidence to support civil rights charges against the officer, Darren Wilson, the officials said.

A broader civil rights investigation into allegations of discriminatory traffic stops and excessive force by the Ferguson Police Department remains open, however. That investigation could lead to significant changes at the department, which is overwhelmingly white despite serving a city that is mostly black.

RELATED STORIES:

Justice Dept. Announces Ferguson Police Probe [VIDEO]

AG Eric Holder Announces Details of DOJ Investigation Into Ferguson

FBI Opens Civil Rights Case In Mike Brown Shooting

The decision not recommend charges for Wilson has not formally been made, reports the Times. The paper also noted:

There is a high legal bar for bringing federal civil rights charges, and federal investigators had for months signaled that they were unlikely to do so. The Justice Department plans to release a report explaining its decision, though it is not clear when.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., has said that he plans to have it done before leaving office, probably in the next month or two if his successor is confirmed.

Now, having had the DOJ AND HOLDER admit there was nothing ever there, will the PC Idiots admit they were 100% Wrong on this?

Dont bother folks, it is a rhetorical question: I never, not for one second, expected anyone of the PC Crowd on the board to ever admit they were wrong.

To be PC is to never have to admit you are wrong on any topic at any time for any reason, even when the entire world can plainly see that you were.

[AUDub 11,147]

Does being this intellectually dishonest take effort or does it come naturally?

[AURaptor 1,122]

Does being this intellectually dishonest take effort or does it come naturally?

Ask the man in the mirror.

Then tell us the answer.