- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 42,340
- Reaction score
- 31,604
- Location
- Tennessee, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
MSNBC Host: U.S. Are Hypocrites on Russia Using Chemical Weapons Since Police Use Tear Gas
On her Saturday morning MSNBC show Cross Connection, host Tiffany Cross equated police in the United States to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's military inflicting mass chaos and death on the Ukrainian people in an unprovoked war. Her reason? Well, she deemed it "hypocritical" for the U.S. to...www.newsbusters.org
Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
Overall, we rate Newsbusters Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them borderline questionable due to the use of poor sources and numerous failed fact checks. One additional failed fact check will push this source by default onto the Questionable list.
Her own words via transcript and video at the link.
Next!
Her own words via transcript and video at the link.
So let's see. Who's comments were worse about Russia/Putin? Donald Trump calling him savvy and genius, or a mistaken comment about tear gas? Honestly, I never cared much for T. Cross. But Trump is lost completely.MSNBC Host: U.S. Are Hypocrites on Russia Using Chemical Weapons Since Police Use Tear Gas
On her Saturday morning MSNBC show Cross Connection, host Tiffany Cross equated police in the United States to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's military inflicting mass chaos and death on the Ukrainian people in an unprovoked war. Her reason? Well, she deemed it "hypocritical" for the U.S. to...www.newsbusters.org
Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
You're moaning about a source that's quoting the quote - trying to draw attention away from the content of the quote, about which you quite disingenuously - and for completely obvious reasons, say nothing.Oh look, it's the "Look what this liberal pundit said!" game!
Reread the bolded quote in my previous post. Read it carefully.
Oh, and re your "bolded" comment, SO WHAT? It does nothing to repudiate what the source claims the MSNBC host said. Mere deflection... nothing more.Oh look, it's the "Look what this liberal pundit said!" game!
Reread the bolded quote in my previous post. Read it carefully.
Tear gas is in fact a real chemical weapon.MSNBC Host: U.S. Are Hypocrites on Russia Using Chemical Weapons Since Police Use Tear Gas
On her Saturday morning MSNBC show Cross Connection, host Tiffany Cross equated police in the United States to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's military inflicting mass chaos and death on the Ukrainian people in an unprovoked war. Her reason? Well, she deemed it "hypocritical" for the U.S. to...www.newsbusters.org
Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
Technically true - and it's effects are non-life-threatening and quite temporary - unlike what we typically talk about when we're talking about chemical weapons, because also technically, tear gas not a "weapon." It's an agent of deterrence and control. "Weapons" are meant to cause damage and death - neither of which can tear gas do, except maybe in extremely rare cases, and then only accidentally or unintentionally.Tear gas is in fact a real chemical weapon.
But it isn't lethal like Sarin or whatever else the Russians may have. Her attempt at comparing the 2 as being equal is pretty stupid.Tear gas is in fact a real chemical weapon.
I don’t agree with the idea tear gas causes death, but your definition of “damage and death” is wierd to me because damage can be anything. Tear gas certainly causes damage to human tissue, it wouldn’t work for crowd control otherwiseTechnically true - and it's effects are non-life-threatening and quite temporary - unlike what we typically talk about when we're talking about chemical weapons, because also technically, tear gas not a "weapon." It's an agent of deterrence and control. "Weapons" are meant to cause damage and death - neither of which can tear gas do, except maybe in extremely rare cases, and then only accidentally or unintentionally.
Have Russians targetted anyone with Sarin?But it isn't lethal like Sarin or whatever else the Russians may have. Her attempt at comparing the 2 as being equal is pretty stupid.
LOLI believe it. Years ago, I was in Chicago protesting. The crowd was tear-gassed. It took us almost 3 minutes to feel better.
Not the point of this thread. The point is the comparison of tear gas and something like sarin gas.Have Russians targetted anyone with Sarin?
They’re both chemical weapons. That was the point made. This is true.Not the point of this thread. The point is the comparison of tear gas and something like sarin gas.
Apparently it’s you who’s missing the pointDo try to keep up.
Tear gas *can* in rare instances cause damage to tissue, but the greater risk is due to damage incurred by being struck by the cannisters themselves rather than the gas.I don’t agree with the idea tear gas causes death, but your definition of “damage and death” is wierd to me because damage can be anything. Tear gas certainly causes damage to human tissue, it wouldn’t work for crowd control otherwise
Which is a form of tissue damage.Tear gas *can* in rare instances cause damage to tissue, but the greater risk is due to damage incurred by being struck by the cannisters themselves rather than the gas.
Tear gas is a "lachrymatory agent" that causes irritation to mucuous membranes
No, you're wrong - Cross is an idiot. She also compared chemical weapons to nuclear power in her opening nonsense.They’re both chemical weapons. That was the point made. This is true.
Irritation is not damage.Which is a form of tissue damage.
Is it allowed in war?Her statement compared tear gas to chemical weapons. Tear gas, while chemical, is NOT a weapon in the normal sense.
Yes, it is. I feel like Alice in wonderland talking to Humpty Dumpty, where now people are so triggered by the mere suggestion against the war narrative we have to redefine the words “chemical weapons”No, you're wrong - Cross is an idiot. She also compared chemical weapons to nuclear power in her opening nonsense.
Her statement compared tear gas to chemical weapons. Tear gas, while chemical, is NOT a weapon in the normal sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?