djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 9, 2020 17:36:39 GMT -5
I actually read it at several sites, just google. Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Organization May 23, 1992 and pick some. I googled it and found it in a non-mainstream website. If you cannot produce a mainstream link, I will delete the post. All quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I doubt you looked very hard, if at all. But it's of no difference to me. I am not wasting a moment on it. Go ahead and delete it. Just shows the extent of your bias. You moved post by the person who agrees with you. But I actually rather you just delete.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 9, 2020 17:57:58 GMT -5
I googled it and found it in a non-mainstream website. If you cannot produce a mainstream link, I will delete the post. All quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I doubt you looked very hard, if at all. But it's of no difference to me. I am not wasting a moment on it. Go ahead and delete it. Just shows the extent of your bias. You moved post by the person who agrees with you. But I actually rather you just delete. The issue is not how hard I looked. It's whether you are able to produce credible sources for your information. That's the difference between Mainstream Media (MM) and Conspiracy Theorists (CTs). MM list their sources with pride whenever possible. For CTs, sources are a needless annoyance that they don't "waste a moment on". If this were a CT forum, I wouldn't care about sources. But since this is a mainstream political forum, I require that all quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I will delete the quote as you request.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Apr 9, 2020 18:19:12 GMT -5
I doubt you looked very hard, if at all. But it's of no difference to me. I am not wasting a moment on it. Go ahead and delete it. Just shows the extent of your bias. You moved post by the person who agrees with you. But I actually rather you just delete. The issue is not how hard I looked. It's whether you are able to produce credible sources for your information. That's the difference between Mainstream Media (MM) and Conspiracy Theorists (CTs). MM list their sources with pride whenever possible. For CTs, sources are a needless annoyance that they don't "waste a moment on". If this were a CT forum, I wouldn't care about sources. But since this is a mainstream political forum, I require that all quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I will delete the quote as you request. Boy, we must live in 2 different universes. The mainstream media has an incredible credibility problem right now. So much so that this article summarized the mainstream media's abuse in its use of anonymous sources:
So it appears that even though most Americans don't trust MM, you deem that it should be trusted. Makes complete sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Apr 9, 2020 18:20:03 GMT -5
I doubt you looked very hard, if at all. But it's of no difference to me. I am not wasting a moment on it. Go ahead and delete it. Just shows the extent of your bias. You moved post by the person who agrees with you. But I actually rather you just delete. The issue is not how hard I looked. It's whether you are able to produce credible sources for your information. That's the difference between Mainstream Media (MM) and Conspiracy Theorists (CTs). MM list their sources with pride whenever possible. For CTs, sources are a needless annoyance that they don't "waste a moment on". If this were a CT forum, I wouldn't care about sources. But since this is a mainstream political forum, I require that all quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I will delete the quote as you request. Fine. Since Fox News ratings kill both CNN and MSNBC ratings, Fox is every bit as much mainstream as they are, perhaps even more so. So links to Fox News won't be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Apr 9, 2020 18:22:09 GMT -5
The issue is not how hard I looked. It's whether you are able to produce credible sources for your information. That's the difference between Mainstream Media (MM) and Conspiracy Theorists (CTs). MM list their sources with pride whenever possible. For CTs, sources are a needless annoyance that they don't "waste a moment on". If this were a CT forum, I wouldn't care about sources. But since this is a mainstream political forum, I require that all quotes and links promoting conspiracy theories must come from mainstream sources. I will delete the quote as you request. Boy, we must live in 2 different universes. The mainstream media has an incredible credibility problem right now. So much so that this article summarized the mainstream media's abuse in its use of anonymous sources:
So it appears that even though most Americans don't trust MM, you deem that it should be trusted. Makes complete sense to me.
If socalfan agrees with something, then it must be true and it comes from MM. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Apr 9, 2020 18:38:47 GMT -5
If you are going to leave out discussion of conspiracy theories, you are going to have to exclude reports from CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC. These networks have done nothing but report conspiracy theories for the last several years. In case you have forgotten, these "news media" outlets provided nonstop false information about Russia collusion and a Ukrainian election interference situation that have been proven to be entirely false. All visitors in this forum can do is ask that you apply the rules in a consistent manner, so those media outlets mentioned should be included in your rules as unreliable information sources. You misunderstand the news process. When rumors first emerge, it is impossible to tell whether they are true or not. So it is a judgment call whether or not to publish them. Mainstream media may well publish things that turn out not to be true. Only the Pope is infallible - mainstream media is not. Since nobody is infallible, infallibility is not what distinguishes mainstream media from conspiracy theorists. What distinguishes mainstream media (MM) from conspiracy theorists (CT) is this: - MM tries to publish retractions when they are shown to be wrong. CTs are not and will never be wrong. - MM tries to air all reasonable sides of controversial issues. For CTs, no other sides exist. - MM tries not to use ad hominem arguments. CTs lack the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of "ad hominem". - MM tries to find supporting arguments for their positions. For CTs, the need for any supporting arguments at all is a fatal sign of weakness. - MM tries to rely on science. CTs use hunches and gut feel. - MM tries to use logical rather than insults. CTs believe that insults strengthen their logic. Note how Trump (an occasional CT) almost always insults those he disagrees with. - MM tries to be as specific as possible. CTs rely on unnamed sources, shadowy organizations, unidentified conspirators and vague accusations such that it is impossible to determine whether those accusations are true or false. - MM tries to fact check. CTs consider the need to stick to facts as an unwelcome hindrance. Here is an example: www.snopes.com/fact-check/jfk-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave/Note that the word "tries" appears prominently above. The difference between MM and CTs is that MM tries, not that MM is always successful. My point is not that MM is always reliable - far from it. My point is that although MM is far from perfect, the alternatives are even worse. (Churchill said the same about democracy.) You must not have listened mainstream media for some time, because none of those wonderful things you listed apply to mainstream media. They are only interested in one thing -- increasing ratings by scoring hit jobs on political opponents. Most probably don't even believe the BS they are spewing. Since most of the MSM is to the political left, it boils down to nonstop efforts to make Trump look bad. That gives us efforts like the 2 year long Russia collusion conspiracy. In contrast, the alternative media is much less interested in scoring political hits than disseminating what they believe to be the truth. It is not a worse choice, it is a far better choice.
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Apr 9, 2020 19:00:20 GMT -5
I have lost interest in the undefined unnamed "Globalists". From now on, unless they are defined and named, I will delete most references to them. Those interested in discussing them can do so in the unmoderated forums. Perhaps this will help. Globalists, I believe, refers to a group of people who promote the increase of power of international organizations, like the U.N. the W.H.O. the I.M.F. at the expense of the power of national organizations. They comprise largely the world's central bankers. They operate outside the public spotlight, so they are not well known to the public, but if you would like a name to hang your hat on, start with the Rothschild family - they own the largest bank in each of about 130 countries, including all the countries you can name. Banking gives the globalists enormous control over other large scale aspects of our lives, like our financial system, economy and foreign affairs (including when and with whom we go to war - remember Eisenhower warning about the military industrial complex?). And the globalists are continually working to extend the reach of their power over the entire globe.
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 9, 2020 19:36:32 GMT -5
I have lost interest in the undefined unnamed "Globalists". From now on, unless they are defined and named, I will delete most references to them. Those interested in discussing them can do so in the unmoderated forums. Perhaps this will help. Globalists, I believe, refers to a group of people who promote the increase of power of international organizations, like the U.N. the W.H.O. the I.M.F. at the expense of the power of national organizations. They comprise largely the world's central bankers. They operate outside the public spotlight, so they are not well known to the public, but if you would like a name to hang your hat on, start with the Rothschild family - they own the largest bank in each of about 130 countries, including all the countries you can name. Banking gives the globalists enormous control over other large scale aspects of our lives, like our financial system, economy and foreign affairs (including when and with whom we go to war - remember Eisenhower warning about the military industrial complex?). And the globalists are continually working to extend the reach of their power over the entire globe. The joke is socalfan thinks he is a Globalist. He is completely unaware he just one of their millions and millions of clueless pawns. Exit: And not likely to be alive to be one of their slaves if the Globalist win.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 9, 2020 20:29:57 GMT -5
There are globalists, people who wish to de-emphasize or even nearly eliminate national sovereignty. George Soros is usually among the top named. There are non-business organizations that he's founded or supported; and if the description applies to him, with his massive fortune, it may apply to those organizations as well. While he's no fan of communists, he has at least advocated for an even stronger EU, with expanded powers and functions. One might even get the impression that he thinks all nationalism favoring right-wing movements are tantamount to Nazis, which clearly is NOT an accurate characterization of most of them.
There _may_ be other organizations of similar mindset, including some think-tanks; and the Trilateral Commission, and the Club of Rome are commonly named, although that's hardly evidence. But more objective descriptions of them could be construed to still be globalist; and certainly not all their critics are right-wingers; some other criticisms were anti-democratic (Trilateral Commission) or amateurism (some of the reports from the Club of Rome).
However the whole Rothschilds international banking story line strikes me as both unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and frequently anti-Semitic as well. (Yes, Soros is theoretically Jewish too, but while that's CERTAINLY not a reason to condemn someone, it's not a free pass on what seems to be behavior that does fit the model of de-emphasizing national sovereignty.) They're an old, large family with various subdivisions, and certainly NOT monolithic in control or views on various matters.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 9, 2020 20:43:03 GMT -5
There are globalists, people who wish to de-emphasize or even nearly eliminate national sovereignty. George Soros is usually among the top named. There are non-business organizations that he's founded or supported; and if the description applies to him, with his massive fortune, it may apply to those organizations as well. While he's no fan of communists, he has at least advocated for an even stronger EU, with expanded powers and functions. One might even get the impression that he thinks all nationalism favoring right-wing movements are tantamount to Nazis, which clearly is NOT an accurate characterization of most of them. There _may_ be other organizations of similar mindset, including some think-tanks; and the Trilateral Commission, and the Club of Rome are commonly named, although that's hardly evidence. But more objective descriptions of them could be construed to still be globalist; and certainly not all their critics are right-wingers; some other criticisms were anti-democratic (Trilateral Commission) or amateurism (some of the reports from the Club of Rome). However the whole Rothschilds international banking story line strikes me as both unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and frequently anti-Semitic as well. (Yes, Soros is theoretically Jewish too, but while that's CERTAINLY not a reason to condemn someone, it's not a free pass on what seems to be behavior that does fit the model of de-emphasizing national sovereignty.) They're an old, large family with various subdivisions, and certainly NOT monolithic in control or views on various matters. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 9, 2020 20:59:16 GMT -5
Karen Douglas Professor of Social Psychology Director of Graduate Studies (Taught) - University of Kent eugeniemerieau.com“I am currently a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Asian Legal Studies (CALS), National University of Singapore. Prior to joining NUS, I was a Post-Doctoral Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. My academic background is in Law, Political Sciences, and Oriental Languages & Civilizations (Sorbonne, Sciences-Po and Inalco, all in Paris, France). In 2017, I have completed my PhD Thesis on “Thai Constitutionalism and Legal Transplants : a Study of Kingship” before joining the Chair of Comparative Constitutionalism (held by Prof. Dr. Ran Hirschl) at the University of Göttingen, Germany.“
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Apr 9, 2020 23:38:55 GMT -5
However the whole Rothschilds international banking story line strikes me as both unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and frequently anti-Semitic as well. newspunch.com/complete-list-of-rothschild-owned-and-controlled-banks/Notice that the Federal Reserve bank is on the list (along with just about every other central bank on the planet). The Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars and pumped them into our economy in just the last few weeks. I don't know about you, but where I come from, that's power. The Bank of England is also on there, and doing the same thing in England. The European Central Bank is also on the list, and doing the same thing in Europe. Same story repeats over and over. That's power with a global reach.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 10, 2020 4:21:58 GMT -5
newspunch.com is about as far away from mainstream as it gets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunchwww.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/sean-adltabatabai-on-being-in-the-eye-of-the-fake-news-storm-a3468361.htmlIMO, they're a crazier, more politically oriented online version of supermarket tabloids; except that once in a very long while, the National Enquirer has actually had a legitimate story, whereas I have my doubts that newspunch.com would even want one (although there might perhaps be occasional limits to their full-on crazy). Of course, anyone you agree with MUST be right, and everyone else MUST be wrong, no matter how wild the one is. I would CERTAINLY agree that most of the MSM is more interested in the left-leaning narrative than in facts; I don't want to spend the time now tracking down evidence, but doubters of that should do the exercise for themselves.. But that doesn't mean the wilder alternatives are credible.
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 10, 2020 5:44:48 GMT -5
Lies exposes thoughout the show.
Clip addesses the lies to discredit the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in combating the obama/gates(Globalist) virus.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 10, 2020 6:09:36 GMT -5
newspunch.com is about as far away from mainstream as it gets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunchwww.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/sean-adltabatabai-on-being-in-the-eye-of-the-fake-news-storm-a3468361.htmlIMO, they're a crazier, more politically oriented online version of supermarket tabloids; except that once in a very long while, the National Enquirer has actually had a legitimate story, whereas I have my doubts that newspunch.com would even want one (although there might perhaps be occasional limits to their full-on crazy). Of course, anyone you agree with MUST be right, and everyone else MUST be wrong, no matter how wild the one is. I would CERTAINLY agree that most of the MSM is more interested in the left-leaning narrative than in facts; I don't want to spend the time now tracking down evidence, but doubters of that should do the exercise for themselves.. But that doesn't mean the wilder alternatives are credible. Socal Fan I have to agree..the newspunch article is also antisemitism on the highest level ..a crazy list...a nonsense article..look at the Rothschild photo...it‘s like articles during NS time in Der Stürmer... It‘s disgusting. May you please delete this. Again the Rothschild story is just a disgusting antisemitic fairytale. Fake news since over 100 years.
|
|