Want to give us an update on this one?

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Are you sure the NYPost is a good source on this? Shouldn't you look into this a just a bit deeper?

Kettle, meet pot.

---

War is god

Nope, I don't spread right wing fever dreams that are not real. So not the same.

That whooshing sound you may have heard was the point going over your head.

---

War is god

If you want to attack something I post, attack there, not in another thread. Don't deflect.

I literally don't have the time or energy to attack each and every post you make in which you offer specious "facts." I'll just leave you with this: You should take your own advice and look into things just a bit deeper before linking to questionable sources (like that cancer Twitter) and offering those links as proof of whatever point you're trying to make.

---

War is god

https://cpasf.ourpowerbase.net/...ct?reset=1&id=45

Back in your hole

Problem is, that's not the Chinese Progressive Association that the NY Post and the Daily Signal assumed it was. Daily Signal have done the bare minimum clean-up on their article, you have the option to do the same.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Pray tell the difference

I can appreciate how hard this must be for someone who prides themself on being so clear-eyed. But one is a Boston organization, one is based in San Francisco. If you want to claim they're one and the same, or even that there's a link between the two, the burden is on you. Sorry to break it to you, but sometimes you're part of the BS echo chamber too:

Despite the mix-up, the Daily Signal’s article went viral on right-wing social media on Thursday, ultimately becoming one of the most-engaged posts on Facebook. Breitbart, the far-right news organization, shared it on Facebook, as did Ben Shapiro, the conservative influencer, who shared it with a single-word caption: “Whoa.” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, shared a Washington Examiner write-up of the report on Twitter. It was also featured by Fox News.
According to CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned data tool, the Daily Signal article received more than 15,000 shares on Facebook. A New York Post story about the supposed Black Lives Matter-China link received more than 25,000 shares.
Conservative attempts to tie Black Lives Matter to communist groups are years old, and have included digging up a statement from one of the movement’s early leaders claiming that several of them were “trained Marxists.” But there is no indication that today’s Black Lives Matter movement has any formal link to Marxism, or to the Chinese Communist Party. As PolitiFact put it this year: “Black Lives Matter has grown into a national anti-racism movement broadly supported by Americans, few of whom would identify themselves as Marxist.”

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

https://roslindale.wickedlocal.com/...00930/NEWS/309308994

Yawn

Dude don't mess with the big dog of pendantcy

I don't know what your post means but that, again, is the wrong organization on the wrong side of the country so I'm not such how it advances your argument? Maybe just take the L.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Um that is Massachusetts

They do sound alike

?? And San Francisco is not in Massachusetts.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Both SF and Boston are affiliated with Communist China. I'm failing to see where you're going with this but I'm getting a Barry vibe from you

OK, what's your evidence that the San Francisco organization is affiliated with Communist China? Because the nypost article you linked to without comment talked about the wrong one, the wickedlocal story you linked to as back-up (I think, I still don't understand that post) talked about the wrong one and this thread is getting boring.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

https://www.heritage.org/...partnering-heres-why

Check the links.

Carry on

The crux of the Heritage piece is that the Boston organization is a chapter of the San Fransisco one. None of the links in the article establish that to be the case. In fact the "authoritative 2009 Stanford paper" makes one reference to Boston and from the phrasing seems to acknowledge that the 5 CPAs were distinct. The Boston CPA has affirmed they're distinct entities which would be a bold claim if it was demonstrably untrue. So, again, where's the evidence? An unsupported assertion in a Heritage piece doesn't cut it. Ever, but especially since they showed their agenda by getting the Thursday report so embarrassingly wrong.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Clarify for me which one is the group supporting BLM and I will attempt to demonstrate their Communism

You posted the link, you work it out.

And although I played into your hands, on reflection I'm not indulging you shifting the goal posts. We're not talking about some historical connection to Communism (which could be sketched out for most anything of Chinese origin). We're talking about whether the NYPost's story alleging that Black Futures Lab was partnering with an organization that is clearly linked to the current PRC and advocated for raising the Chines flag over Boston City Hall was accurate. It was not.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

I know you don't like it when people call you on BS. But you just don't get to spread misinformation and then whine when people point it out.