Jack Bauer said:

---

Worse than Bosom Buddies...

These are just a few of the “matches” on my friend’s lesbian dating app.

Remember when words used to mean things? pic.twitter.com/al2kRnV0W3

— Kaeley Triller (@KaeleyT) February 25, 2023

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

the largest ethnic population in US has the most political power? Weird..

Late night "comedian" discounts Department of Energy but would give a Swedish Teenager a full hour of the show if they could..

Comedy Central's @hasanminhaj attacks the Dept. of Energy for investigating the Covid lab leak theory: "I'm holding out until the DMV chimes in" pic.twitter.com/FNDMS6ejXD

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 28, 2023

Any Atlanta Bears?

Buckhead is a leafy suburb that doesn't want a load of duplexes and condos and multilane roads being constructed. NPR will call it racist.

But more places in America should become self-governing and limit the ability for new entrants to arrive. https://t.co/qtWztITqQH pic.twitter.com/vXMNsciuXX

— ib (@lndian_Bronson) February 27, 2023

The legend of Jabba the Hut lives on!!

Someone pinch me, this cannot be real pic.twitter.com/G7DIcbM6Yg

— Pragmata Americana (@demontage2000) February 27, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Any Atlanta Bears?

Buckhead is a leafy suburb that doesn't want a load of duplexes and condos and multilane roads being constructed. NPR will call it racist.

But more places in America should become self-governing and limit the ability for new entrants to arrive. https://t.co/qtWztITqQH pic.twitter.com/vXMNsciuXX

— ib (@lndian_Bronson) February 27, 2023

---

Has been brewing for a decade. Would be crushing to the City of Atlanta and Atlanta Public Schools, but I understand the reasons.

Election denier Stacy Abrams is currently in Nigeria to monitor their election.

What the hell is going on here? 😂pic.twitter.com/MhRcivuG9a

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 28, 2023

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

Human Rights Watch.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

There it is, folks: Sam Lowry, ANTIFA defender!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

I could never understand how holocaust deniers were actually a real thing. I just couldn't fathom how some people could convince themselves it never happened. But the "mostly peaceful" crowd who continue to contest any statements about the carnage that followed George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, CHAP CHOP or whatever the hell Portland called it, etc, despite the fact we all watched it happen live on the news have now helped me understand.

FormerFlash said:

---

I could never understand how holocaust deniers were actually a real thing. I just couldn't fathom how some people could convince themselves it never happened. But the "mostly peaceful" crowd who continue to contest any statements about the carnage that followed George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, CHAP CHOP or whatever the hell Portland called it, etc, despite the fact we all watched it happen live on the news have now helped me understand.

---

CHAP/CHOP was in Seattle.

Jack Bauer said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

I could never understand how holocaust deniers were actually a real thing. I just couldn't fathom how some people could convince themselves it never happened. But the "mostly peaceful" crowd who continue to contest any statements about the carnage that followed George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, CHAP CHOP or whatever the hell Portland called it, etc, despite the fact we all watched it happen live on the news have now helped me understand.

---

CHAP/CHOP was in Seattle.

---

That's right. Portland had it's own mess. Thanks for the clarification.

FormerFlash said:

---

I could never understand how holocaust deniers were actually a real thing. I just couldn't fathom how some people could convince themselves it never happened. But the "mostly peaceful" crowd who continue to contest any statements about the carnage that followed George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, CHAP CHOP or whatever the hell Portland called it, etc, despite the fact we all watched it happen live on the news have now helped me understand.

---

It is incredible to witness. When the democrats saw the damage they caused with Defund the Police they began claiming it was actually Republicans who defunded the police and their complicit media dutifully parroted the lie. Now they're even claiming it was poor John Stewart who took the brunt of the backlash when people pointed out China gave us Covid despite it very obviously being Trump that was the recipient of all that hate. It's delusional at best, evil at worst.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

---

So when your article says they were hemmed in by police and prevented from leaving before the curfew, you're saying that's wrong. And you know this because you saw it "with your own eyes." Does that mean you watched it on TV, or you were there? What are the plaintiffs' names? How did you identify them at the scene and connect them with this litigation?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

---

So when your article says they were hemmed in by police and prevented from leaving before the curfew, you're saying that's wrong. And you know this because you saw it "with your own eyes." Does that mean you watched it on TV, or you were there? What are the plaintiffs' names? How did you identify them at the scene and connect them with this litigation?

---

Yes. Believe it or not the media was very interested in showing the "peaceful protests" that broke out all across the country. Some of us, in fact MANY of us, watched those videos, including the NYC riots. Not only that, but most of us were taught how to tell time, so we used those abilities plus our ability to hear and see to learn about how curfew in NYC was at 8pm EST. Now I know I might lose you here so I'll type slow; seeing as most of the people living in major cities at the time also dealt with curfews and movement restrictions due to the China lab created Covid pandemic, we had a vested interest in seeing how law enforcement was treating those who brazenly flaunted the laws the rest of us stupidly followed. These people stayed out late and obviously planned to flaunt the curfew just as many of them flaunted the mask rule and social distancing rules. Based on your posts and lack of knowledge here it's obvious you didn't care to watch the riots or any of the reporting on the riots and that's okay, but trying to argue NOW after not bothering to do any research is a little disingenuous.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

---

So when your article says they were hemmed in by police and prevented from leaving before the curfew, you're saying that's wrong. And you know this because you saw it "with your own eyes." Does that mean you watched it on TV, or you were there? What are the plaintiffs' names? How did you identify them at the scene and connect them with this litigation?

---

Yes. Believe it or not the media was very interested in showing the "peaceful protests" that broke out all across the country. Some of us, in fact MANY of us, watched those videos, including the NYC riots. Not only that, but most of us were taught how to tell time, so we used those abilities plus our ability to hear and see to learn about how curfew in NYC was at 8pm EST. Now I know I might lose you here so I'll type slow; seeing as most of the people living in major cities at the time also dealt with curfews and movement restrictions due to the China lab created Covid pandemic, we had a vested interest in seeing how law enforcement was treating those who brazenly flaunted the laws the rest of us stupidly followed. These people stayed out late and obviously planned to flaunt the curfew just as many of them flaunted the mask rule and social distancing rules. Based on your posts and lack of knowledge here it's obvious you didn't care to watch the riots or any of the reporting on the riots and that's okay, but trying to argue NOW after not bothering to do any research is a little disingenuous.

---

I guess you didn't see my posts about the riots at the time. For example, the majority of protesters at Lafayette Square were peaceful and had left the area in time to get home for curfew. The ones who remained evidently had no intention of leaving and were already becoming violent. This is why police were justified in using tear gas.

It's possible that the NYC incident was similar. You've shown no evidence of this, and everything you have shown tends to contradict it, but I realize that it's possible. It's also possible that these plaintiffs were part of the peaceful majority and were mistreated by the police even though you're still butt-hurt about Covid (since you insist on hammering that point, for whatever reason). Again, it's your issue and your burden of proof. All you've proven so far is that in your mind pretty much anyone who was there to protest was a criminal and should be treated as such.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

---

So when your article says they were hemmed in by police and prevented from leaving before the curfew, you're saying that's wrong. And you know this because you saw it "with your own eyes." Does that mean you watched it on TV, or you were there? What are the plaintiffs' names? How did you identify them at the scene and connect them with this litigation?

---

Yes. Believe it or not the media was very interested in showing the "peaceful protests" that broke out all across the country. Some of us, in fact MANY of us, watched those videos, including the NYC riots. Not only that, but most of us were taught how to tell time, so we used those abilities plus our ability to hear and see to learn about how curfew in NYC was at 8pm EST. Now I know I might lose you here so I'll type slow; seeing as most of the people living in major cities at the time also dealt with curfews and movement restrictions due to the China lab created Covid pandemic, we had a vested interest in seeing how law enforcement was treating those who brazenly flaunted the laws the rest of us stupidly followed. These people stayed out late and obviously planned to flaunt the curfew just as many of them flaunted the mask rule and social distancing rules. Based on your posts and lack of knowledge here it's obvious you didn't care to watch the riots or any of the reporting on the riots and that's okay, but trying to argue NOW after not bothering to do any research is a little disingenuous.

---

I guess you didn't see my posts about the riots at the time. For example, the majority of protesters at Lafayette Square were peaceful and had left the area in time to get home for curfew. The ones who remained evidently had no intention of leaving and were already becoming violent. This is why police were justified in using tear gas.

It's possible that the NYC incident was similar. You've shown no evidence of this, and everything you have shown tends to contradict it, but I realize that it's possible. It's also possible that these plaintiffs were part of the peaceful majority and were mistreated by the police even though you're still butt-hurt about Covid (since you insist on hammering that point, for whatever reason). Again, it's your issue and your burden of proof. All you've proven so far is that in your mind pretty much anyone who was there to protest was a criminal and should be treated as such.

---

They all had an easy way to tell time. They CHOSE to stay late. Again, this is nothing but a payoff to the rioters.

---

And again, the only source you've provided says otherwise.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

NYC is now paying BLM rioters who destroyed business, attacked police and civilians and created mayhem. I never want to hear another word complaining about politicians supporting Jan 6th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-pay-millions-protesters-arrested-175725004.html

---

The article says that the police failed to differentiate between peaceful protesters and criminal actors. Where does it say these plaintiffs destroyed businesses or attacked people?

---

According to the plaintiffs attorneys. That's hardly fact.

---

According to a report issued in December 2020, which as far as I can tell from your article was independent of the lawsuit. Do you know otherwise?

---

Which report? The "civilian police watchdog" group's report? They have less credibility than the lawyers.

---

Why, who are they?

---

You mean other than your only source for your opinion here? I'll go copy and paste their name into Google and be right back.

---

I'm just going by the article you linked. I was curious whether it had any resemblance to what you're posting here. So far I'm not seeing much. According to your source, the NYPD admits that they've changed their policies "based on the findings of the department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the recommendations from three outside agencies who carefully investigated that period." Evidently this is why they agreed to the settlement. There's nothing that says they're paying people who committed crimes. So I'm wondering where you got that.

---

So your contention is that I posted the link with an unspoken acknowledgment that by posting said link I believe any and all claims made within and deny anything could have happened outside of said claims? That's an odd take. You cannot ignore the fact most of us here watched the "peaceful protests" after George Floyd OD'd while getting his neck crushed as a result of resisting arrest. We saw the carnage. You also cannot ignore the fact that there was a pandemic going on that stripped most Americans of the right to ducking work and even travel. Those same Americans(us) watched as these "peaceful protesters" rioted during the lockdowns. You see, context matters, and when you take the "facts" presented by this article and compare them to the actual video we watched we can easily arrive at the conclusion that rioters are being paid for their rioting. Your ability to understand or maybe just acknowledge that is irrelevant. Entertaining. But irrelevant.

---

No, I'm not saying you denied anything outside the claims in the link. I'm asking for the source of your claims. You're the one accusing the plaintiffs of criminal violence, so you have the burden of proof.

---

I witnessed it with my own eyes, like everyone else who bothered to watch the riots. Your denial they happened means nothing.

---

Of course the riots happened. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking about the specific people who are parties to this settlement.

---

So am I. They went out to riot and rage over a dead criminal and didn't leave in time to make the curfew put in place due to the Chinese virology lab engineered Covid pandemic. Now they want to play victim and the city is more than willing to show their support for BLM by paying up.

---

So when your article says they were hemmed in by police and prevented from leaving before the curfew, you're saying that's wrong. And you know this because you saw it "with your own eyes." Does that mean you watched it on TV, or you were there? What are the plaintiffs' names? How did you identify them at the scene and connect them with this litigation?

---

Yes. Believe it or not the media was very interested in showing the "peaceful protests" that broke out all across the country. Some of us, in fact MANY of us, watched those videos, including the NYC riots. Not only that, but most of us were taught how to tell time, so we used those abilities plus our ability to hear and see to learn about how curfew in NYC was at 8pm EST. Now I know I might lose you here so I'll type slow; seeing as most of the people living in major cities at the time also dealt with curfews and movement restrictions due to the China lab created Covid pandemic, we had a vested interest in seeing how law enforcement was treating those who brazenly flaunted the laws the rest of us stupidly followed. These people stayed out late and obviously planned to flaunt the curfew just as many of them flaunted the mask rule and social distancing rules. Based on your posts and lack of knowledge here it's obvious you didn't care to watch the riots or any of the reporting on the riots and that's okay, but trying to argue NOW after not bothering to do any research is a little disingenuous.

---

I guess you didn't see my posts about the riots at the time. For example, the majority of protesters at Lafayette Square were peaceful and had left the area in time to get home for curfew. The ones who remained evidently had no intention of leaving and were already becoming violent. This is why police were justified in using tear gas.

It's possible that the NYC incident was similar. You've shown no evidence of this, and everything you have shown tends to contradict it, but I realize that it's possible. It's also possible that these plaintiffs were part of the peaceful majority and were mistreated by the police even though you're still butt-hurt about Covid (since you insist on hammering that point, for whatever reason). Again, it's your issue and your burden of proof. All you've proven so far is that in your mind pretty much anyone who was there to protest was a criminal and should be treated as such.

---

Anyone who was there and did not plan to leave by the time curfew struck indeed WAS a criminal, by definition. Walking yourself to an area where you are cut off from walking through doesn't make one a victim. This payoff is nothing but an apology for daring to arrest the DNC's violent race warriors in the first place. You keep begging me to provide you with the videos I've seen, but you know I'm not going to waste time doing that. You're similar to the reporter standing next to the burning building while reporting it's been a mostly peaceful protest. They all had an easy way to tell time. They CHOSE to stay late. Again, this is nothing but a payoff to the rioters.

---

---