TexasCHLforum.com

2farnorth wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:24 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:02 pm

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:28 am

jb2012 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:24 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:27 pm I can’t post the other tweet, it has the dead woman’s last words.

It was laced with profanity as she talks about stabbing the two women. It kinda makes the above tweet about shooting in the air silly.

At this point I think Juan is nothing more than a paid actor. I mean no disrespect to the rest of the hosts, but I think Juan is paid to say the most outrageous things he can possibly come up with against the other hosts. To this day I don’t think I’ve seen him agree with Gutfeld, Watters or any of the rest, one single time. I don’t even think Juan even agrees with the things he says himself, I think fox pays him to make the show more “interesting” or “dramatized.”

Here is a different question: If Juan Williams is paid to say inflammatory things against the Conservative speaking Fox staff, is he any different than Lemon on CNN? I'm not suggesting that Lemon doesn't believe what he says but I think he says what he does in the same "fire for effect" style that Williams uses. All of them may have their personal views but I suspect they are coached to use the most antagonist way of saying it that they can find. All of them but Bob Beckel. I think he was genuine and didn't need to be coached to be caustic.

I have wondered for years if Democrats with influence aren't all on an email list that sends out talking points each morning. It seems every one of these leftist scum uses almost the exact same wording.

Yep. It was called the AP wire service originally. Now each network has "spin" coordinators to orchestrate the narrative.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:31 pm The latest I heard was that police should not stop a stabbing, kids have been stabbing each other for years.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:35 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:50 pm
So the real question becomes how many officers are really needed to police a medium large city before it sees enough crime to wake people up?

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I'm very certain this is the plan.

1. Incapacitate the local police. Make sure that they cannot do their jobs and that there are not enough of them to act if they wanted to. I suggest that we have already reached that point in parts of most of the big cities. I do not believe that Chicago, for example, gets "normal" policing in the gang controlled areas. I have no police training but believe that if I were charged with stopping crime in one of those areas, I'd want to saturate it with officers, at least in the short term, and start picking off the "problems", one at a time if necessary. As long as that level of man-power isn't available, control of the area will rest with the gangs/criminals
2. Have people get fed up with the lawlessness and demand a solution. That "solution" is Federal level troops to be replaced, over time, by Federal police officers who are not under local control. I'm convinced this is why the big push for gun control so that people will not have the power to do the clean up themselves. Call it TSA 2.0 The whole organization grew from nothing and in a short time. In my mind, TSA is ruthless - they are to do as they please within the mission that they have and the Federal police will be the same. I expect it to be phased in an area or a city at a time. When success is achieved in one area, the cries from other areas will produce rapid expansion. Yes, I understand that staffing could be an issue.