Pizza time?

#1,103
#1,103
ajvol01 said:
Reminder - this is the part of my post you bolded and asked for links



No mention of the Mueller report. Do hard news / fact based reporters typically imply?

So you thought there were some fact-based stories of Trump being a Nazi? Or of him starting WW3?

You’re trying way to hard to win an argument I’m not interested in. You started it with your request for links. I provided links showing a few examples of the types of things I’ve witnessed consistently over the last 2-1/2 years and you immediately start lecturing about people not understanding the difference between fact-based hard journalism and op-eds.
When the majority of the media coverage of this administration appears to be opinion-based and not based on facts, what are the people that disagree with those opinions/narratives supposed to think?

If you’re completely unwilling to acknowledge the obvious bias of 90%+ negative coverage of Trump by the MSM, then that’s unfortunate for you.

Can you honestly compare the media’s coverage of Obama to Trump?

It’s blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

So, reading your post out of context, as you insist (points for creativity on that, I guess) your opinion is that the media is a bunch of unprincipled thugs who are clever enough to hoodwink millions of Americans, but they’re too principled to just get the journalists to gin up stories, or they’re not clever enough to realize that false journalism would be much more effective than flooding the market with bad punditry?

That’s the result, if you’re only talking about pundits. It’s not very persuasive.

If the opinions of these pundits are reasonable in light of the facts, then there is no basis for your assumption of bad faith. If they’re not reasonable in light of the facts, then only a few few will be persuaded by them, and there’s no support for your assumption of unfair outcomes.

The truth is that there’s no such thing, anymore, as persuasive opeds. Everything is confirmatory. Nobody dislikes Trump because of the media. They dislike Trump because of Trump. The oped section just sells them what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#1,104
#1,104
Jeffrey Epstein's private 'Island of Sin' and sex dolls: 5 weird details to know


Epstein kept an assortment of peculiar items in his Manhattan mansion, from a life-like human doll dangling from a chandelier to a human-sized chessboard with scantily clad figurines modeled after his employees, according to New York Magazine. Other oddities include individually framed prosthetic eyeballs mounted along a hallway.

He kept prosthetic breasts by a bathtub that he could play with while bathing, Jennifer Araoz, a woman who claims she was abused and raped by Epstein when she was just 15 years old, told NBC News in a recent interview. She said there were also photos of naked women hanging in a massage room.
 
#1,105
#1,105
evillawyer said:
This article is based on questions posed to real hedge fund managers. They discuss their knowledge of Epstein (basically no one they know invests with him, something seems sketchy about his financial work) and make a HYPOTHESIS about what COULD be going on. It's never phrased as fact. Q, on the other hand, speaks in oracular code that you guys take out you decoder rings to try to decipher because you think he's asserting FACTS. Big difference.
Click to expand...
Oh, and the referenced quote wasn't the "hypothesis" of fellow hedge-fundies. It was the accusations of a claimed-victim accuser. Now, that doesn't prove that she's telling the truth, but does seem an important correction to your response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#1,106
#1,106
RockyTop85 said:
So, reading your post out of context, as you insist (points for creativity on that, I guess) your opinion is that the media is a bunch of unprincipled thugs who are clever enough to hoodwink millions of Americans, but they’re too principled to just get the journalists to gin up stories, or they’re not clever enough to realize that false journalism would be much more effective than flooding the market with bad punditry?

That’s the result, if you’re only talking about pundits. It’s not very persuasive.

If the opinions of these pundits are reasonable in light of the facts, then there is no basis for your assumption of bad faith. If they’re not reasonable in light of the facts, then only a few few will be persuaded by them, and there’s no support for your assumption of unfair outcomes.

The truth is that there’s no such thing, anymore, as persuasive opeds. Everything is confirmatory. Nobody dislikes Trump because of the media. They dislike Trump because of Trump. The oped section just sells them what they want.
Click to expand...
I'll give it to ya, this is the most beautifully wrote pile of 🐂 💩 I've seen on here in a few months.


👍
 
#1,107
#1,107
Orange_Crush said:
I generally tend to agree with you, but allow for possibilities like:

The possibility that a conspiracy theory may be true, even if it's never publicly proven. (We all know we have shadow programs and an untrustworthy gov't. We all know the 3-letter agencies are doing horrible **** and hiding it well. If we know about the Monarch programs, imagine what we don't know about. I tend to leave open lots of possibilities that the gov't is conspiring against the good of the people and for the power of the gov't.)

And...

Trump may be some sort of symbol of change and threat to that system--i.e. a new variable in the old system of secrecy? (Note I didn't say that he's the agent of change. I think that to really expose all of that, you'd need to find some good guys in the system, with all the dirt, who want to make changes. They'd need to get someone elected that wasn't beholden to the corrupt system. Someone who won't be bought off, loves the country, but is sleezy enough to enjoy rolling around in all the mud that'll be thrown in both directions.)

The reports have been that the gov't has been conspiring against us, the NSA has all the dirt, they vetted Trump, he got elected, and they're spear-heading the release of all the dirt. Part of the accusations has been a pedo ring among the rich and powerful, used to blackmale the wealthy and political elite.

Low and behold, look what's dripping out in the media. Is it proof? Heck no! Is it enough to make me take notice and follow a bit closer, with a bit more open mind? Yah.
Click to expand...

This is where I am too, but with probably a little more belief that pizzagate could be real. But at this point, anyone who still claims it is a debunked conspiracy theory is simply not paying attention. It has not been disproved. I'll grant that there hasn't been one singular smoking gun, but the odd coincidences and circumstantial evidence continue to pile up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, FallCreekVols and ajvol01
#1,108
#1,108
Orange_Crush said:
I generally tend to agree with you, but allow for possibilities like:

The possibility that a conspiracy theory may be true, even if it's never publicly proven. (We all know we have shadow programs and an untrustworthy gov't. We all know the 3-letter agencies are doing horrible **** and hiding it well. If we know about the Monarch programs, imagine what we don't know about. I tend to leave open lots of possibilities that the gov't is conspiring against the good of the people and for the power of the gov't.)

And...

Trump may be some sort of symbol of change and threat to that system--i.e. a new variable in the old system of secrecy? (Note I didn't say that he's the agent of change. I think that to really expose all of that, you'd need to find some good guys in the system, with all the dirt, who want to make changes. They'd need to get someone elected that wasn't beholden to the corrupt system. Someone who won't be bought off, loves the country, but is sleezy enough to enjoy rolling around in all the mud that'll be thrown in both directions.)

The reports have been that the gov't has been conspiring against us, the NSA has all the dirt, they vetted Trump, he got elected, and they're spear-heading the release of all the dirt. Part of the accusations has been a pedo ring among the rich and powerful, used to blackmale the wealthy and political elite.

Low and behold, look what's dripping out in the media. Is it proof? Heck no! Is it enough to make me take notice and follow a bit closer, with a bit more open mind? Yah.
Click to expand...
Great post!
 
#1,110
#1,110
RockyTop85 said:
So, reading your post out of context, as you insist (points for creativity on that, I guess) your opinion is that the media is a bunch of unprincipled thugs who are clever enough to hoodwink millions of Americans, but they’re too principled to just get the journalists to gin up stories, or they’re not clever enough to realize that false journalism would be much more effective than flooding the market with bad punditry?

That’s the result, if you’re only talking about pundits. It’s not very persuasive.

If the opinions of these pundits are reasonable in light of the facts, then there is no basis for your assumption of bad faith. If they’re not reasonable in light of the facts, then only a few few will be persuaded by them, and there’s no support for your assumption of unfair outcomes.

The truth is that there’s no such thing, anymore, as persuasive opeds. Everything is confirmatory. Nobody dislikes Trump because of the media. They dislike Trump because of Trump. The oped section just sells them what they want.
Click to expand...
Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about.

Watch the video

 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo, AirVol, DC_Vol and 2 others
#1,120
#1,120
Another story just release about Epstein’s Private Island and his Bizarre Temple.

What’s the Deal with the Bizarre Temple-Like Structure on Jeffrey Epstein’s Private Island?

Many ties to the Q post.
Jeffrey Epstein child sex-trafficking ...
Ghislaine Maxwell, is a British socialite who has been accused of acting as Epstein’s madam.
...
But the INSIDER account is raising eyebrows because an engineer and contractor named James Both commented that the wooden door of the structure appeared to be designed to keep people in, rather than keeping people out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#1,123
#1,123
hjeagle1vol said:
Please do link back to where I said that. You drew your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
I understood your implication. Why else post that? What basis do you have to attack Obama or Branson? You can’t post that and act like you weren’t implying one of them is a deviant scum.
 
#1,124
#1,124
RockyTop85 said:
So, reading your post out of context, as you insist (points for creativity on that, I guess) your opinion is that the media is a bunch of unprincipled thugs who are clever enough to hoodwink millions of Americans, but they’re too principled to just get the journalists to gin up stories, or they’re not clever enough to realize that false journalism would be much more effective than flooding the market with bad punditry?

That’s the result, if you’re only talking about pundits. It’s not very persuasive.

If the opinions of these pundits are reasonable in light of the facts, then there is no basis for your assumption of bad faith. If they’re not reasonable in light of the facts, then only a few few will be persuaded by them, and there’s no support for your assumption of unfair outcomes.

The truth is that there’s no such thing, anymore, as persuasive opeds. Everything is confirmatory. Nobody dislikes Trump because of the media. They dislike Trump because of Trump. The oped section just sells them what they want.
Click to expand...

The 3 major networks plus CNN and MSNBC blasting Trump from every angle about any issue 24/7 has a definite effect. Month after month they begin to believe. Don't get me wrong Trump does his part, but not to the degree that warrants this type of news coverage. They are not told how to write but the journalists have figured it out, all political articles regarding the White House must be negative. Say something negative or say nothing at all. Journalists are afraid to break the party line. Now if you never hear anything good and are blasted with bad news every day pretty soon you become brainwashed to it. Just watch any of the 3 news channels headlines local news, they in lockstep reading the daily propaganda handed down to them. Fox is allowed to publish the opposite simply to piss of the Democrats. Its all designed to keep the population split on every issue and put a Democrat in charge.
 
#1,125
#1,125
volfanhill said:
I understood your implication. Why else post that? What basis do you have to attack Obama or Branson? You can’t post that and act like you weren’t implying one of them is a deviant scum.
Click to expand...

Attack?

They're both deviant scum imo….especially the renegade!
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top