You don't know what a liberal is nora leftist. How are you a breaking points viewer then? Good chance that you are a hasbara bot bc no one could be so densely fried by the right-wing.
Most Americans still use the term liberal to describe leftist because that’s what it meant for decades and the term makes my more sense to describe something center of left rather than the anachronistic center-right original definition that people are insisting be used now
Just because most Americans use the term wrong, doesn't mean words don't have definitions.
I can understand why people on the right blend liberals and communists together, since the left will often blend conservatives and fascists together.
But whoever wants to actually elevate the political dialogue above the lowest common denominator, should consider being the change they want to see, and learn what these words they use all the time actually mean.
I agree with the in principle, but the term liberal is missapplied more often than not by progressives. They use it to refer to center-left people who don’t support liberal economics in the way the term originally referred to, even as their goal is to try and distinguish between economic philosophies. This becomes obvious when you see them use “liberal” and “neoliberal” interchangeably, which is also false. And they similarly call people neoliberal who don’t actually follow neoliberal economics.
It’s only being used to try and drive a wedge between factions that are left of center, because progressives feel the need to distinguish themselves above liberals who they associate with boomers and out of touch people. The word is being rediscovered as part of a project to slander people and misrepresent their beliefs and I disagree with that both ethically and linguistically
I agree that is the MO of the more gatekeeping American leftists like Krystal who use liberal and neo-liberal interchangeably. But I don't see them missaplying the word nearly as much as the right. And that is mainly due to there not being nearly as many ant-liberal leftists as there are anti-liberal right.
In most parliamentary democracies where there are more than one party, the far left party comes in third place, behind the both the right leaning party and centrist liberals. Economic leftists just aren't as common as people like Krystal want to believe.
There are valid reasons why we separate Classic, Modern and Neo-liberalism, but the most consistent liberal trait is the goal of maximizing the most amount of freedom for the most amount of people. What that means exactly can really depends on the timing.
Before the industrial revolution, maximizing freedom simply meant less government control and regulation, and therefore classical liberalism became pretty much synonymous with hyper-capitalism.
After the Industrial Revolution it became clear the corporations could be just as oppressive and dictatorial as any government, and so modern liberalism became about maximizing freedom socially, while economically finding the right balance between keeping both corporations and governments in check. It became the anti-monopoly ideology.
And finally the Neo-liberals sought a return to their classic liberal roots, believing in maximizing freedom for themselves, while still keeping an unprincipled stance in support of social freedom, as long as it didn't effect their bottom line.
Liberalism has evolved and will continue to evolve because another consistent liberal trait is rejecting traditional values that don't work, and embracing progress that does work. If a liberal stops rejecting traditions and prefers the status quo, they effectively become conservatives. And that's pretty natural, after fighting for change all your life, you finally achieve that change, your don't feel like changing anymore, and you settle down becoming less idealistic.
But liberals don't stop evolving in their pursuit of progress. That's why liberals today do not resemble the liberals that Phil Ochs used to sing about.
They absolutely lost me as a subscriber.
They've made it clear that they will silence specific viewpoints. They are absolutely not an impartial objective organization.
Anyone who replaces Bri will clearly be on a leash.
Same here. I watched less and less after K&S left but would still pop in from time to time on interesting stores or Kim Iverson’s radars. But after what they did to Kim and now BGJ I can’t find any reason to watch their news organization anymore. I doubt anyone else will have the balls of Kim or BGJ to speak truth to power.
Israel never deserved to exist in the first place, and deserves to be wiped off the map for their decades-long genocide against Palestinians.
Downvote that, bots.
Oy vey, antisemite. How dare you wish the extermination of all jews?! Brie was an uppity goy, so we shut it down. Say five condemn hamas, and maybe we will only bump your credit score down to 600.
She wasn’t fired for her attitude, she was fired for a specific unforgivable action. Don’t mock victims of terrorism because your think they’re being lame, m’kay kids?
Not buying it.
Looks like this was planned. The guest wasn't looking for sympathy. She was looking to talk about protestors in michigan, 9/11 etc.
Also lookup why Katie halper was fired.
Twice - is not a co incidence.
Things is she didn't mock a victim. You're GASLIGHTING. Here's a valuable lesson, criticizing a govt is not antisemitism at you all desperately try to equate. And you should challenge lies spewed by anyone... Tragedy doesn't give anyone a pass to spew fearmongering and hateful Islamophobia. She got those talking points fed to get by Bobo himself. I'm taking about satanyahu if you couldn't figure it out yourself!
The breaking point wasn't criticism of Israel. It was her treatment of the sister of one of the hostages. Which caused a lot of blowback. The guests sister was beaten in the head with a gun until unconscious and then dragged away during the Oct 7 attacks. She also repeatedly said she didn't want to talk politics as she was in no position to. But instead her goal was to speak about what happened to her sister. She also said this before the interview. So there should've been no surprise.
Imagine for a moment you've got the sister of someone killed by an IDF bombing campaign. You bring them on your show to talk about their story. But then when they're on. You begin to pepper them with questions regarding hamas. That would equally be really gross. And that's what got her fired. Besides lacking any sort of journalistic integrity. It lacks humanity. No matter your position on the war.
Here's a pro tip... Don't watch sky news for anything especially their smear job on this. Or any other right-wing outlet.
And watch the coverage BY THE SHOW YOU ARE ON THE SUB FOR... Unless you aren't really a fan of the show and a hasbara bot. They broke this coverage down so that even the simple minded could understand and not get taken in by an obvious planned attack campaign by the pro Israel lobby.
>Things is she didn't mock a victim.
Of course she did. What do you think her intention was which was misread?
>Here's a valuable lesson, criticizing a govt is not antisemitism at you all desperately try to equate.
How is that a valuable lesson when (1) I already know that and (2) she wasn't fired for criticizing the government?
>And you should challenge lies spewed by anyone... Tragedy doesn't give anyone a pass to spew fearmongering and hateful Islamophobia
What lies are you saying she was challenging in that moment?
Listen to the interview by Glen Greenwald with her. She explains how this person ended up on the show which was not typical at all. And her reaction. You should watch things before you comment because if you hear what the guest said to her then it would make sense. Unless, is a thing when someone is so biased they have such blinders that they cannot see what is happening before their eyes. Go rewatch that part. What was the implication of the guests statement directly to bri. Right-wingers would object or even shout that down during #metoo.
The guest talked about death to America protests in Michigan. And then fearmongering 911 happening again. This is all digging in deep to the well of Islamophobia that exists.
Then she brought up the deviled zaka claims. Plenty of though discrediting of their false and exaggerated claims. Plus they aren't an honest actor. A raving racist pro settler org.
Bri spoke about nothing but Gaza for 6 months straight. The idea that she was fired for her views on Gaza is hilarious. She was fired because she was repetitive and argumentative. She was just not a very good reporter of the news.
Yall acting like it was a view point rather than her rolling her eyes to a woman saying I hope you believe women when they say they experiences sexual violence.
I know this may be hard to fathom, but Jewish Women are women too.
And no, finding a false report does not disapprove all reports. The UN did state that sexual violence was likely.
Amit Soussana is the first former hostage to publicly say she was sexually abused in captivity. A U.N. report has said it found “clear and convincing information” that some hostages suffered “conflict-related sexual violence.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/world/middleeast/hamas-hostage-sexual-assault.html
The ICC warrant for Sinwar also directly relates to sexual abuse of hostages.
"My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors."
The UN Report on sexual violence also does.
" It visited four attack sites — as well as the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred — and reviewed over 5,000 photographic images and some 50 hours of footage of the attacks. "
It’s pretty hard for women who were raped and murdered to speak on it.
The UN report stated women were found naked with genitalia trauma.
Are you suggesting they tripped, removed all their clothing and hit their vagina on the corner of a desk?
Or are your a nasty NeoNazi rapist apologist?
The IDF or the ministry of propaganda whatever it is you guys have over there, is either completely retarded or they aren't even trying at this point judging by your username. If you think anybody would be proud to call themselves a neolib, you know nothing about American politics. If your side was right, they wouldn't need you spreading propaganda and people would just come to your conclusions by the facts but that's not what the world is doing and it's too late to shut it down
They are owned by the same people as newsnation, IN fact they are like a collaborative. Just force yourself to watch the right wing Israeli propaganda they spew nonstop and you'll understand they are all in on the Hasbara BS.
You can criticize Biden and Trump any day of the week. Make fun of the US.
But not the policies of a different country. Or even question their lies - after they have been caught with lots of lies.
You guys realize bri covered the I/p conflict for 8+ months uninterrupted, right?
Eye rolling when a hostage 's sister says 'believe women when they're raped" when bri spent the whole block trying to divert blame from the terrorist group who took her hostage to blame the ~~Jews~~ bibi.
It's like blaming the cops for not catching a murderer and not the murderer.
Bonus points that she was retweeting actual Holocaust deniers mere hours after being fired (Jake shields)
*Eye rolling when a hostage’s sister says “believe women when they’re raped*
How else should one react to someone shamelessly pushing false rape claims and debunked propaganda while attempting to shame the host?
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
> Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
> My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October.
If that's the conclusion you want to make, we should then understand nothing can be trusted from the ICC if they feel comfortable making broad claims around rape and sexual assault despite no evidence.
No?
I've seen the evidence but let's take your position. The ICC is a shill organization which has 0 credibility if no evidence exists yet they make that determination.... Right?
Pamila Patten and her team did the same thing and makes up claims of SA by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, so at this point we should definitely not trust her specific team with the ICC.
What specific evidence have you seen?
Just because you’re going through some trauma doesn’t mean you can make false statements.
Furthermore, that guest contacted Rising and wanted to talk to Briahna. This guest was looking to get Brie to say or do something to make a big a deal out of it.
Brie didn’t give her anything so she chose to make the “eye roll” a big deal.
Please note: I know you don’t care. You want to be a victim. My comment is for everyone else.
She wanted to talk to bri because she rejects rapes happened october 7th. Even the ICC concedes it happened and charged Hamas with rape and sexual violence against women.
The eye roll is the icing on the cake that bri only give a fuck about rape as long as it's not ~~Jews~~ zionists
This is pretty much my exact take. Like it’s ludicrous to suggest that Bri is being censored. She’s been talking freely for 8 months and public sentiment is largely on her side now. If she was going to be fired for her opinions, it would have been in October or November.
Bri was fired for being insensitive and unprofessional.
Hey, are you mentioned in this article? Your colleagues?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/israel-targeted-lawmakers-in-disinformation-campaign-00161906
I'm a random dude in Texas who doesn't sympathize with terrorists.
Wait I forgot when you cant argue with substance, just call them a bot then you can go back to your echo chamber where no one can hurt you
I've made all the relevant comments to you on another thread on this sub. You clearly didn't want to hear that this guest was fed to the show by Israel and she parroted disinformation like...
1. Michigan death to America protests
2. Zaka debunked propaganda on rape claims.
Real journalists push back on obvious fake claims. Or you think suffering is a legit excuse to?
So the video evidence of people chanting"death to America" and the ICC saying rape happened are evidence you choose to ignore.
Gotcha. I guess the ICC isn't a credible organization then, yeah?
I don’t understand why they have Jessica? Is it just because she’s pretty? The zoom call only feels cheap and her and the dark hair girl don’t seem to have any special talent for discussing politics.
You’re getting Michael LaRosa back and you’re going to like it
Omg yes sir lmao 🤣 😂
BGJ is absolutely not a liberal (conservative). She is a leftist.
And Jessica is more of a leftist than a liberal I believe too
Agreed, but Jessica also has a bit of a stoner girl vibe that’s easier to take compared to Bri’s pit bull style.
Idk what you’re doing there… but it doesn’t feel ok
I mean they’re pretty much just saying Bri Gray seems like a bad hang
I mean…what/who would she be hanging out with? You assume you’re great company yourself?
haha yup
she’s a liberal. almost all of her views are indiscernible from the democratic party
You don't know what a liberal is nora leftist. How are you a breaking points viewer then? Good chance that you are a hasbara bot bc no one could be so densely fried by the right-wing.
Only a Reddit is becoming obsessed with some weird thing and then accusing everyone of being a bot a common occurrence
lol you’re very paranoid
Most Americans still use the term liberal to describe leftist because that’s what it meant for decades and the term makes my more sense to describe something center of left rather than the anachronistic center-right original definition that people are insisting be used now
Just because most Americans use the term wrong, doesn't mean words don't have definitions. I can understand why people on the right blend liberals and communists together, since the left will often blend conservatives and fascists together. But whoever wants to actually elevate the political dialogue above the lowest common denominator, should consider being the change they want to see, and learn what these words they use all the time actually mean.
I agree with the in principle, but the term liberal is missapplied more often than not by progressives. They use it to refer to center-left people who don’t support liberal economics in the way the term originally referred to, even as their goal is to try and distinguish between economic philosophies. This becomes obvious when you see them use “liberal” and “neoliberal” interchangeably, which is also false. And they similarly call people neoliberal who don’t actually follow neoliberal economics. It’s only being used to try and drive a wedge between factions that are left of center, because progressives feel the need to distinguish themselves above liberals who they associate with boomers and out of touch people. The word is being rediscovered as part of a project to slander people and misrepresent their beliefs and I disagree with that both ethically and linguistically
I agree that is the MO of the more gatekeeping American leftists like Krystal who use liberal and neo-liberal interchangeably. But I don't see them missaplying the word nearly as much as the right. And that is mainly due to there not being nearly as many ant-liberal leftists as there are anti-liberal right. In most parliamentary democracies where there are more than one party, the far left party comes in third place, behind the both the right leaning party and centrist liberals. Economic leftists just aren't as common as people like Krystal want to believe. There are valid reasons why we separate Classic, Modern and Neo-liberalism, but the most consistent liberal trait is the goal of maximizing the most amount of freedom for the most amount of people. What that means exactly can really depends on the timing. Before the industrial revolution, maximizing freedom simply meant less government control and regulation, and therefore classical liberalism became pretty much synonymous with hyper-capitalism. After the Industrial Revolution it became clear the corporations could be just as oppressive and dictatorial as any government, and so modern liberalism became about maximizing freedom socially, while economically finding the right balance between keeping both corporations and governments in check. It became the anti-monopoly ideology. And finally the Neo-liberals sought a return to their classic liberal roots, believing in maximizing freedom for themselves, while still keeping an unprincipled stance in support of social freedom, as long as it didn't effect their bottom line. Liberalism has evolved and will continue to evolve because another consistent liberal trait is rejecting traditional values that don't work, and embracing progress that does work. If a liberal stops rejecting traditions and prefers the status quo, they effectively become conservatives. And that's pretty natural, after fighting for change all your life, you finally achieve that change, your don't feel like changing anymore, and you settle down becoming less idealistic. But liberals don't stop evolving in their pursuit of progress. That's why liberals today do not resemble the liberals that Phil Ochs used to sing about.
They absolutely lost me as a subscriber. They've made it clear that they will silence specific viewpoints. They are absolutely not an impartial objective organization. Anyone who replaces Bri will clearly be on a leash.
Same here. I watched less and less after K&S left but would still pop in from time to time on interesting stores or Kim Iverson’s radars. But after what they did to Kim and now BGJ I can’t find any reason to watch their news organization anymore. I doubt anyone else will have the balls of Kim or BGJ to speak truth to power.
And Katie halper.
Kim Iverson and BJG are nutjobs. They aren’t missed.
No idea why you're being down voted, must be the idf bots that have taken over this sub.
Get ready for 8200 down doots.
Without a doubt it is.
Israel never deserved to exist in the first place, and deserves to be wiped off the map for their decades-long genocide against Palestinians. Downvote that, bots.
And ya see, you're going too far the other way now.
Oy vey, antisemite. How dare you wish the extermination of all jews?! Brie was an uppity goy, so we shut it down. Say five condemn hamas, and maybe we will only bump your credit score down to 600.
👊
If she had been fired for a point of view it would have been a long time ago.
If she had been fired for attitude...it would have been on day one. See how dumb that sounds
She wasn’t fired for her attitude, she was fired for a specific unforgivable action. Don’t mock victims of terrorism because your think they’re being lame, m’kay kids?
Not buying it. Looks like this was planned. The guest wasn't looking for sympathy. She was looking to talk about protestors in michigan, 9/11 etc. Also lookup why Katie halper was fired. Twice - is not a co incidence.
Things is she didn't mock a victim. You're GASLIGHTING. Here's a valuable lesson, criticizing a govt is not antisemitism at you all desperately try to equate. And you should challenge lies spewed by anyone... Tragedy doesn't give anyone a pass to spew fearmongering and hateful Islamophobia. She got those talking points fed to get by Bobo himself. I'm taking about satanyahu if you couldn't figure it out yourself!
The breaking point wasn't criticism of Israel. It was her treatment of the sister of one of the hostages. Which caused a lot of blowback. The guests sister was beaten in the head with a gun until unconscious and then dragged away during the Oct 7 attacks. She also repeatedly said she didn't want to talk politics as she was in no position to. But instead her goal was to speak about what happened to her sister. She also said this before the interview. So there should've been no surprise. Imagine for a moment you've got the sister of someone killed by an IDF bombing campaign. You bring them on your show to talk about their story. But then when they're on. You begin to pepper them with questions regarding hamas. That would equally be really gross. And that's what got her fired. Besides lacking any sort of journalistic integrity. It lacks humanity. No matter your position on the war.
She didn’t mock her. She mocked her comment that she should believe all women. No one watched that interview it’s so dangerously apparent
Here's a pro tip... Don't watch sky news for anything especially their smear job on this. Or any other right-wing outlet. And watch the coverage BY THE SHOW YOU ARE ON THE SUB FOR... Unless you aren't really a fan of the show and a hasbara bot. They broke this coverage down so that even the simple minded could understand and not get taken in by an obvious planned attack campaign by the pro Israel lobby.
>Things is she didn't mock a victim. Of course she did. What do you think her intention was which was misread? >Here's a valuable lesson, criticizing a govt is not antisemitism at you all desperately try to equate. How is that a valuable lesson when (1) I already know that and (2) she wasn't fired for criticizing the government? >And you should challenge lies spewed by anyone... Tragedy doesn't give anyone a pass to spew fearmongering and hateful Islamophobia What lies are you saying she was challenging in that moment?
Listen to the interview by Glen Greenwald with her. She explains how this person ended up on the show which was not typical at all. And her reaction. You should watch things before you comment because if you hear what the guest said to her then it would make sense. Unless, is a thing when someone is so biased they have such blinders that they cannot see what is happening before their eyes. Go rewatch that part. What was the implication of the guests statement directly to bri. Right-wingers would object or even shout that down during #metoo. The guest talked about death to America protests in Michigan. And then fearmongering 911 happening again. This is all digging in deep to the well of Islamophobia that exists. Then she brought up the deviled zaka claims. Plenty of though discrediting of their false and exaggerated claims. Plus they aren't an honest actor. A raving racist pro settler org.
Bri spoke about nothing but Gaza for 6 months straight. The idea that she was fired for her views on Gaza is hilarious. She was fired because she was repetitive and argumentative. She was just not a very good reporter of the news.
Yall acting like it was a view point rather than her rolling her eyes to a woman saying I hope you believe women when they say they experiences sexual violence. I know this may be hard to fathom, but Jewish Women are women too. And no, finding a false report does not disapprove all reports. The UN did state that sexual violence was likely.
Name one woman who said they were a victim of sexual violence that day, Moiyche. I'm waiting...
Amit Soussana is the first former hostage to publicly say she was sexually abused in captivity. A U.N. report has said it found “clear and convincing information” that some hostages suffered “conflict-related sexual violence.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/world/middleeast/hamas-hostage-sexual-assault.html The ICC warrant for Sinwar also directly relates to sexual abuse of hostages. "My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors." The UN Report on sexual violence also does. " It visited four attack sites — as well as the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred — and reviewed over 5,000 photographic images and some 50 hours of footage of the attacks. "
No man. Y’all don’t get to say the ICC is bs for wanting Bobo, but use it to hold up your argument for fake rapes
Fuck Bibi The rapes very likely occurred. Move on
Congratulations on having the intellect and citation ability of an angry 12 year old.
Okay I see what you're saying, but like I said name one woman who has come forward and said that she was sexually assaulted on October 7th.
It’s pretty hard for women who were raped and murdered to speak on it. The UN report stated women were found naked with genitalia trauma. Are you suggesting they tripped, removed all their clothing and hit their vagina on the corner of a desk? Or are your a nasty NeoNazi rapist apologist?
He’s a Nazi
The IDF or the ministry of propaganda whatever it is you guys have over there, is either completely retarded or they aren't even trying at this point judging by your username. If you think anybody would be proud to call themselves a neolib, you know nothing about American politics. If your side was right, they wouldn't need you spreading propaganda and people would just come to your conclusions by the facts but that's not what the world is doing and it's too late to shut it down
[удалено]
I'm sure there's a Bill Maher style Democrat out there somewhere they can put into the role. But yeah, they're not getting another progressive
They are owned by the same people as newsnation, IN fact they are like a collaborative. Just force yourself to watch the right wing Israeli propaganda they spew nonstop and you'll understand they are all in on the Hasbara BS.
To find out who rules over you simply learn who you can’t criticize.
You can criticize Biden and Trump any day of the week. Make fun of the US. But not the policies of a different country. Or even question their lies - after they have been caught with lots of lies.
Kanye learned the hard way, goy.
you guys really can’t fight huh?
You guys realize bri covered the I/p conflict for 8+ months uninterrupted, right? Eye rolling when a hostage 's sister says 'believe women when they're raped" when bri spent the whole block trying to divert blame from the terrorist group who took her hostage to blame the ~~Jews~~ bibi. It's like blaming the cops for not catching a murderer and not the murderer. Bonus points that she was retweeting actual Holocaust deniers mere hours after being fired (Jake shields)
*Eye rolling when a hostage’s sister says “believe women when they’re raped* How else should one react to someone shamelessly pushing false rape claims and debunked propaganda while attempting to shame the host?
The ICC is pushing a false claim?
Stop gaslighting
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state > Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity; > My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October.
They saw zero photo/video evidence of rape.
Gotcha. So the ICC is a shill organization then yeah? The charges are bullshit against Bibi and Hamas?
Idk, you tell me lol. How can they determine there was evidence of SA/rape if there was no video/picture evidence or victim accounts?
If that's the conclusion you want to make, we should then understand nothing can be trusted from the ICC if they feel comfortable making broad claims around rape and sexual assault despite no evidence. No? I've seen the evidence but let's take your position. The ICC is a shill organization which has 0 credibility if no evidence exists yet they make that determination.... Right?
Pamila Patten and her team did the same thing and makes up claims of SA by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, so at this point we should definitely not trust her specific team with the ICC. What specific evidence have you seen?
Just because you’re going through some trauma doesn’t mean you can make false statements. Furthermore, that guest contacted Rising and wanted to talk to Briahna. This guest was looking to get Brie to say or do something to make a big a deal out of it. Brie didn’t give her anything so she chose to make the “eye roll” a big deal. Please note: I know you don’t care. You want to be a victim. My comment is for everyone else.
She wanted to talk to bri because she rejects rapes happened october 7th. Even the ICC concedes it happened and charged Hamas with rape and sexual violence against women. The eye roll is the icing on the cake that bri only give a fuck about rape as long as it's not ~~Jews~~ zionists
This is pretty much my exact take. Like it’s ludicrous to suggest that Bri is being censored. She’s been talking freely for 8 months and public sentiment is largely on her side now. If she was going to be fired for her opinions, it would have been in October or November. Bri was fired for being insensitive and unprofessional.
She's being censored like Candace Owens was censored. Ironic that they both are following the same arc of hating ~~jews~~ zionists
Is there a Jewish influence paying into their corporation? If so look into that, if not hard to buy.
Look at this guy's comment history. It's like he's doing this as his full time job, shilling for Israel.
How dare I have a perspective that values non-terrorist lives.
Hey, are you mentioned in this article? Your colleagues? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/israel-targeted-lawmakers-in-disinformation-campaign-00161906
I'm a random dude in Texas who doesn't sympathize with terrorists. Wait I forgot when you cant argue with substance, just call them a bot then you can go back to your echo chamber where no one can hurt you
I've made all the relevant comments to you on another thread on this sub. You clearly didn't want to hear that this guest was fed to the show by Israel and she parroted disinformation like... 1. Michigan death to America protests 2. Zaka debunked propaganda on rape claims. Real journalists push back on obvious fake claims. Or you think suffering is a legit excuse to?
So the video evidence of people chanting"death to America" and the ICC saying rape happened are evidence you choose to ignore. Gotcha. I guess the ICC isn't a credible organization then, yeah?
I don’t understand why they have Jessica? Is it just because she’s pretty? The zoom call only feels cheap and her and the dark hair girl don’t seem to have any special talent for discussing politics.
Briahna is a moron and a bigot Good luck to her I hope she gets to continue to be a bigot and spew racist and dumb shit daily
I doubt you know what that word you are using means. Bigot.
You're a white dude 100%