• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC'S Tiffany Cross: U.S. Are Hypocrites on Russia Using Chemical Weapons Since Police Use Tear Gas

It doesn't take a genius to see that comparing tear gas to chemical weapons is bloody moronic.
It's like saying being punched by a 3 year old is as bad as being punched full force by Mike Tyson in his prime.
 
Obviously she doesn't know the difference between a chemical weapon and a chemical deterrent.

.
Tear gas is specifically defined as a chemical weapon is its use is banned in war by the Geneva Convention. So obviously.....
 
Tear gas is specifically defined as a chemical weapon is its use is banned in war by the Geneva Convention. So obviously.....
C. F. Post #40
 
Tear gas is specifically defined as a chemical weapon is its use is banned in war by the Geneva Convention. So obviously.....
Chemical weapons kill people, while tear gas merely stops people from advancing.
 
Wuhl..... yeah.

Point being - it was an utterly asinine question.

Don't you think?
Eh.... I don't think I'd ask it, but I'm sure many people who see the domestic use of tear gas have some feeling about it's legitimate use.
She asked the question, the matter was instantly cleared up.... and for some reason right wing blogs want to make it the cause of the day.

As I said earlier, you can hear more inane stupid prattle on fox any night of the week.
 

Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing :rolleyes:
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.

Harebrained moron.
 
Addressed in post #7

Is your argument she did not say this?
You probably should re-read my post as you and the point clearly did not see eye to eye. Let me take it down a notch...

1) I made no comment as to whether Tiffany Cross did or did not make such a comment. I made a strong inference that she is capable of such.

2) With regard to what is contained in a questionable source, if you want due attention, do the extra work and use a legitimate cite so that we don't go off on the obvious distraction. No one should begin any thread with a cite from a questionable source regardless of its contents. If the issue were real, you can source it correctly. The "she said it right on tape" is not always a good argument as I have seen lots of videos that were cut in ways that deliberately set things such they were out context, Good sources do not generally let that happen; bad sources go out of their way to do so.
 

Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing :rolleyes:
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
ung.png
 
Chemical weapons kill people, while tear gas merely stops people from advancing.
Tear gas was used to seriously harm and kill people in World War I. I had a great grandfather who was a victim.
 
As I said earlier, you can hear more inane stupid prattle on fox any night of the week.
This wasn't Fox, it was MSNBC
 
Tear gas was used to seriously harm and kill people in World War I. I had a great grandfather who was a victim.
DIfferent gases than are used in tear gas today.
 
I replied earlier than post 40 that the chemical weapon known as tear gas has been allowed for use by police. That does not change the fact that it is a chemical weapon.
That it's "chemical" there's no question. That it's a "weapon" most certainly allows debate.
 
You probably should re-read my post as you and the point clearly did not see eye to eye. Let me take it down a notch...

1) I made no comment as to whether Tiffany Cross did or did not make such a comment. I made a strong inference that she is capable of such.

2) With regard to what is contained in a questionable source, if you want due attention, do the extra work and use a legitimate cite so that we don't go off on the obvious distraction. No one should begin any thread with a cite from a questionable source regardless of its contents. If the issue were real, you can source it correctly. The "she said it right on tape" is not always a good argument as I have seen lots of videos that were cut in ways that deliberately set things such they were out context, Good sources do not generally let that happen; bad sources go out of their way to do so.
Then go to the source. You can easily and readily find it on the channel that broadcasts her - MSNBC. P.S. the links have already been posted.
 

Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing :rolleyes:
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
I would take this more seriously if you guys actually understood what communism and socialism and used those terms correctly.
 
I would take this more seriously if you guys actually understood what communism and socialism and used those terms correctly.
Um... neither word having been used in either the article you quoted or in any of the posts till yours.
 
Except for the obvious fact that that wasn't my argument at all.
It seems like it is. A giant throwback to the days where any criticism of the US war machine means you hate the troops and want the terrorists to win
 
right011.png


MBFCMixed.png




Next! 👋

All that, but you couldn't be bothered to watch what the idiot at MSNBC said herself. Do you think newsbusters created a fake video of this genius pontificating about tear gas?
 

Yeah....tear gas and a REAL chemical weapon like sarin gas are the very same thing :rolleyes:
Cross should stick to race-baiting. She sounds slightly less stupid when doing that.
Tell $h!+ for brains that dispersing a (typically criminal) crowd with tear gas is not the same as using biological weapons to kill people with in a
country you just illegally invade!
And let her know that they have all police officers get exposed to tear gas in training.....
 

Attachments

  • CNN-Mostly-Peaceful.jpg
    CNN-Mostly-Peaceful.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 0
All that, but you couldn't be bothered to watch what the idiot at MSNBC said herself. Do you think newsbusters created a fake video of this genius pontificating about tear gas?
Yeah there's a lot of people who try to use this Ad Hominem fallacy and they think other people don't realize that they are full of shit!
It's pretty sad and pathetic.
 
Chemical weapons kill people, while tear gas merely stops people from advancing.
Not true. CS is a chemical weapon. A weapon does not need to be generally lethal.
 
Unless the whole article is her own words, the only safe assumption is it lies about what she said.
An even safer assumption is you didn't even bother to click on the link to the MSNBC Cross Connection site and watch it for yourself---

--- which means no assumptions are necessary about your basic understanding of what she did or didn't say in the first place.
 
It seems like it is. A giant throwback to the days where any criticism of the US war machine means you hate the troops and want the terrorists to win
Well, it isn't - and still won't be no matter how many irrelevant obscurities you conjure up to make it seem so to you.
 
Back
Top Bottom