https://www.google.com/search?q=french+blm&num=100&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf4bK2zI_OAhXK1IMKHWaIA50QpwUIFg&biw=1357&bih=855
to be fair most of these cite the breitbart article that we've already established is somewhat falsified, which was a discussion that mostly happened because it was necessary to first verify lord tony's source, since it does come from a heavily conservative-biased site (clear, unhidden ideological bias is a pretty fair reason to be skeptical), and it was making very bold claims of very serious events. and then it was discovered that it wasn't quite accurate, and then tony had a fit because people called him out for having a bad source, and so even further discussion was necessary to explain
why the source was bad, not that nothing ever happened at all. and at this point naturally people are arguing semantics because naturally the discussion had to shift to one of a lesser event that is real as opposed to a mass chaos event that isn't
quite real
Like every major news media outlet LIVE, article and newspaper. K. Got it.
Like even the loving most trusted news sources do that bullstuff.
the fact that the water in the mains has a cup of piss in it isn't an excuse to drink from the stuff tube, always opt for sources that at least try to not be so clearly motivated
By the way, "burning down a town" doesn't mean the entire town went up in flames, you forgetin' idiot.
even if it could be construed to mean something else, the imagery is very clear. the phrase definitely would make you assume that there was some kind of mass arson event
