Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 57 of 111 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967107 ... LastLast
Results 4,201 to 4,275 of 8309
  1. #4201
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Btw, happy MLK day. Are you still surprised by the reaction?
  2. #4202
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"
    So he has some highlights on his resume, that makes him immune to criticism forever? "all talk, no action" is taken completely out of context. It's part of a larger sentence that clearly references the CURRENT state of his district, which has higher rates of poverty than the national average.

    It's not like Trump said "you've never done anything but talk in your life!". Do you not see the difference?

    Using your logic, I could say that Hitler was a great leader because the German trains ran on time. Any criticism of him beyond that impugns that accomplishment and is considered a heinous personal attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such?
    Not even close. How does anything Trump said now diminish anything Lewis accomplished decades ago? It's obvious, to anyone who wants to be impartial and see the truth, that Trump did nothing except suggest Lewis mind his own business.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?
    Actually...yeah

    Again, using your logic, no one would ever be able to criticize Phil Hellmuth. He can make all the idiotic calls he wants, and run his mouth like jackass. No one can say anything about it cause he's got a shitload of bracelets.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-16-2017 at 01:36 PM.
  3. #4203
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Btw, happy MLK day. Are you still surprised by the reaction?
    This shitstorm started Saturday as far as I can tell. Exactly how long is MLK day?

    Also, I was under the impression that the day was set aside to reflect on and celebrate the accomplishments and life's work of the man, and the movement he represented.

    I didn't know it was a get out of jail free card that black activist leaders can use to throw temper tantrums without scrutiny.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-16-2017 at 01:29 PM.
  4. #4204
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    So you are surprised then? You seem to be attacking me and going on a rant about who is above scrutiny or whatever. You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting one side is right or wrong.

    I'm simply asking why you're surpised. I'm surprised youre surprised. Personally, I'd have bet money that this exact set of events would have occurred when the President Elect describes a guy, who was critical to the civil rights movement, as "all talk" days before MLK day.

    Given the millions of people that live here, the state of race relations, the general feeling towards trump, and more, how can you really be surpised by the article you linked?
  5. #4205
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.
  6. #4206
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Given the millions of people that live here, the state of race relations, the general feeling towards trump, and more, how can you really be surpised by the article you linked?
    Because of the source. If it was some garbage heap like Salon.com, or a desperate-for-attention pundit on MSNBC I wouldnt' be surprised.

    But you have a marquee name in journalism trying to navigate a climate where reasonable people are wary of "fake news". And instead of sticking to the facts, they literally INVENTED a multi-page racists hit-piece out of nothing.
  7. #4207
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.
    You'd have to presume that Trump could predict the media would interpret "Fix your district" as "you didn't do shit in the 60's"

    Seems like a reach, but maybe not.
  8. #4208
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"

    Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such? Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?
    The wording appears to be a mistake by Trump. In context, he said "all talk, no action" regarding the last several decades when Lewis has been all talk, no action. But those word choices are too easily conflated with Lewis' life in entirety, so adversaries to Trump jump to calling it Trump disparaging a particular time and way in which Lewis was not all talk, no action.

    As far as I can tell Trump made a mistake here. It wasn't a mistake of criticizing a man who should be criticized harshly, but in how Trump's words left him open to attacks from the anti-Trump forces. Notice how Trump has backed down. This is likely due in part to him realizing he didn't set this one up as well as he sets up others.
  9. #4209
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.
    I don't think he is. I think he genuinely wants better race relations and better inner cities. He gets smeared at every corner as somebody trying to undermine those through faux dog whistles and such.
  10. #4210
    If we're being intellectually honest here, I think the interpretation is that Trump was attacked by a person making a very stupid claim (Trump is illegitimate), then he responded by attacking the awful performance of his attacker on a very important issue of inner cities, and then his attacker (and most of the media) straw manned and claimed Trump was attacking Civil Rights.

    That's what we would get if we had an honest media.
  11. #4211
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.
    Or maybe I'm totally wrong and this was a tactic to get eyes on him and this:

  12. #4212
    C'mon, Trump loves black people. Haven't you seen him hanging out with Don King and Steve Harvey?
  13. #4213
    He certainly likes them more than Obama ever did.
  14. #4214
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Or maybe I'm totally wrong and this was a tactic to get eyes on him and this:
    They'll skewer him for that too. See, he's doing it all wrong.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/16...s-radical.html
  15. #4215
    Oh they've already perverted his legacy. If he was alive today, he would be an Uncle Tom no different than people like Sowell or Sheriff David Clarke.
  16. #4216
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Oh they've already perverted his legacy. If he was alive today, he would be an Uncle Tom no different than people like Sowell or Sheriff David Clarke.
    If he were alive today, he'd be nobody. In 2017, if the media discovers (or the FBI leaks) the fact that you're an unapologetic chronic adulterer.....you're toast.

    Being black didn't help Tiger Woods, it wouldn't help a modern day MLK.
  17. #4217
    http://www.infowars.com/report-cnnbu...-inauguration/

    There's rumour that they have Trump saying nigger on tape. And calling his son a retard.

    What gets me with this report is that there seems to be concern about getting sued... why would that happen if it's genuine?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #4218
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What gets me with this report is that there seems to be concern about getting sued... why would that happen if it's genuine?
    I can think of at least two reasons.
    1) There most certainly are contractual obligations between producers of the Apprentice and Trump. I'm sure the quality of the show depends on being able to have cameras everywhere, on all the time. It would follow then, that part of the compromise includes controlling any embarrassing or controversial content. Mark Burnett and his people (the ones who own the alleged tape), are still making the Apprentice, and have a vested interest in maintaining it as a going concern. Regardless of the credibility of any lawsuit, it's sure to tie up time and resources that could conceivably end the show. Why kill a golden goose just to hurt a guy who's already won anyway.

    2) The article states that the infamous "n word" quote occurs off-camera. In legal speak, that means it didn't happen at all. So publishing this is really straddling the line between gossip and slander.
  19. #4219
    There doesn't seem to be much more to this story other than the rantings of Tom Arnold. And if I recall, those are old news. Like, before the election, old news. If we were going to see it, we would have seen it already.
  20. #4220
    Yeah that's a reasonable analysis, cheers.

    If it happened "off camera", or in other words hasn't been recorded, then it's bollocks and will have no impact on Trump. If he has been caught saying nigger, well he'd better hope the context isn't racist. Good luck with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #4221
    Another reason you might not see this video is that the Dems are simply 'conserving ammo' until 2020. No sense in emptying the clip now.
  22. #4222
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Another reason you might not see this video is that the Dems are simply 'conserving ammo' until 2020. No sense in emptying the clip now.
    Since when do political parties have that much control on when anything leaks?
  23. #4223
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Since when do political parties have that much control on when anything leaks?
    Since always

    The MSM rounded up 8 different women who claim that Trump groped them. These alleged incidents took place over the course of years, but all 8 women came forward on the same day
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-17-2017 at 01:31 PM.
  24. #4224
    Yeah I mean no doubt this footage is years old. When was he on the Apprentice?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #4225
    If it was true it would have leaked before the election day. Consider that this is coming on the heels of Trump blasting how badly the new Apprentice is doing. Consider also that the story aligns with adversaries' absolute favorite myth about Trump: that he hates black people. Too nose scratchy.
  26. #4226
    The fact it's come from Infowars, a pro-Trump source, is the reason I haven't just dismissed it outright.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #4227
    I guess that's true, but I'll be honest that I categorize InfoWars as fake news just as well as the MSM. They report on so much unverified shit that doesn't turn out to be true. That's what CNN and Buzzfeed just did.
  28. #4228
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I remember hearing about it years ago.
  29. #4229
    You're like that cunt of a kid at school that liked everything before it was cool, aren't you?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #4230
    If Trump said that ^ to someone, he'd probably get accused of a hate crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #4231
    I've said far worse than Trump has. I've friends who think Trump has said too horrible things for them to support him who have also said far worse.

    When it comes to politics, people sit on their brains.
  32. #4232
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    If an American Citizen has said horrible things, then its ok for the President of the United States to say bad things.
  33. #4233
    Shitposting goes over there.


    It's about a sense of proportion. Most people of real substance have said things that would "disqualify" them from public office.

    Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!

  34. #4234
    Depends on context as far as 'n' word goes. But calling your autistic son a retard (if that's what he did) is pretty awful regardless of context.
  35. #4235
    oooooooh, interesting...

  36. #4236
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I remember hearing about it years ago.
    I kinda remember I did too. If I'm being totally honest, I believe this tape exists, and I believe it contains everything they say it does. Trump dodged a bullet by saying it off-camera. That's all. At the same time though, I really don't care at this point. Trump has said plenty of stuff that *should* have been his undoing, and it wasn't. Unless he says something treason-ish, it's water under the bridge now.

    In 2017, the N word is radioactive. If you reached adulthood, say, before 1975, then you probably remember a time when it wasn't. So I actually do give Trump a little latitude here.

    My grandfather said the N word ALL THE TIME. He didn't hate black people. He never showed me anything that says he values anyone less because of their skin color. It was just a word to him. I mean, he grew up, went to war, survived, and when he got back stateside, he found that pro baseball was still entirely white. So if he held on to some old-school vocabulary, that's not exactly troubling.

    It's more troubling in Trump's case considering his responsibilities and position at the time, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!
    Life tip: train yourself to substitute the word "fella". Eliminate the chance of any slip-ups at parties.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-18-2017 at 09:42 AM.
  37. #4237
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/1...otests-manning

    Changed from being anit-trump, to being pro-trump....about 30 minutes ago.

    Staunchly in support of Peyton Manning

    Desperate for the Roswell documents.

    And the sad part is, The Washington Times, and I guess some other news outlets, reported on this guy as if he was 100% legit.

    Tucker cracks me up
  38. #4238
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Shitposting goes over there.


    It's about a sense of proportion. Most people of real substance have said things that would "disqualify" them from public office.

    Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!

    If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

    Should we really be setting the bar that low?
  39. #4239
    The Prez should be the most perfect human being on the planet. I hope he never says "shit" when he discovers there's no bog roll.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #4240
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

    Should we really be setting the bar that low?
    C'mon man. Aren't you being just a little bit glib?

    Trump claimed that "Bill Clinton said worse to me on the golf course" in response to his Access Hollywood 'hot mic' comments. I definitely believe him. It's not much of a leap considering the non-presidential behaviors Clinton committed while in office.

    JFK was a notorious adulterer. FDR died while boffing his mistress. And I'm almost sure that at least 3/4 of our past presidents have used the N word at some point in their life.

    I think you have an unrealistic expectation of where the "bar" should be.

    It would be nice if our President were some sinless angel incapable of fault, but that's not realistic. The GOP ran such a guy in 2012 and the media turned him into woman-opressing homophobic hater of the poor.

    It doesn't' matter what gets said....someone will consider it to be "horrible".
  41. #4241
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

    Should we really be setting the bar that low?
    I don't mean to suggest that the President shouldn't guard what he says. On the contrary, it is more important that he says the right thing than any other person on the planet.

    What I'm asking for is to understand things people, regardless of who they are, have said be taken into the context of that which is normal. If I were to run for President, I would make Trump look like the Pope in comparison just by things I have said on this forum alone. I would look like a monster in comparison, and yet I am not a monster and virtually everybody can relate.

    It is wrong for the President to say the wrong thing, but digging up something in the President's past should be viewed as virtually meaningless. I view people getting upset about things Presidents have said in the past as cognitive dissonance about their own lives.

    Do you see what I'm saying or can I explain it better?
  42. #4242
    This Ben Swann fella seems to be a real gangster.

  43. #4243
    BREAKING: Ben Swann commits suicide by three shots to the back of the head.
  44. #4244
    BTW he ain't joking about that dude's instagram. Although it's not proof and I can't prove pizzagate, I entered into the "I personally believe it" realm back when I checked out his instagram. If you didn't even have pedophilia on the mind and you saw the pics he has, you'd be "is this dude a pedo?"
  45. #4245
  46. #4246
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    C'mon man. Aren't you being just a little bit glib?

    Trump claimed that "Bill Clinton said worse to me on the golf course" in response to his Access Hollywood 'hot mic' comments. I definitely believe him. It's not much of a leap considering the non-presidential behaviors Clinton committed while in office.

    JFK was a notorious adulterer. FDR died while boffing his mistress. And I'm almost sure that at least 3/4 of our past presidents have used the N word at some point in their life.

    I think you have an unrealistic expectation of where the "bar" should be.

    It would be nice if our President were some sinless angel incapable of fault, but that's not realistic. The GOP ran such a guy in 2012 and the media turned him into woman-opressing homophobic hater of the poor.

    It doesn't' matter what gets said....someone will consider it to be "horrible".
    If prior presidents have said bad things, it's ok for future presidents to say bad things?
  47. #4247


    Six years ago. Dude died at very young age. Pizzagate confirmed.
  48. #4248
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't mean to suggest that the President shouldn't guard what he says. On the contrary, it is more important that he says the right thing than any other person on the planet.

    What I'm asking for is to understand things people, regardless of who they are, have said be taken into the context of that which is normal. If I were to run for President, I would make Trump look like the Pope in comparison just by things I have said on this forum alone. I would look like a monster in comparison, and yet I am not a monster and virtually everybody can relate.

    It is wrong for the President to say the wrong thing, but digging up something in the President's past should be viewed as virtually meaningless. I view people getting upset about things Presidents have said in the past as cognitive dissonance about their own lives.

    Do you see what I'm saying or can I explain it better?
    I think statements can provide insight into someone's character. I also think the context of statements can be politicized. But I don't think presidents should get a free pass on everything they've ever said, and I don't think it's stupid to care about that.

    I think it's OK for your friends to not like trump because they perceive him as being too offensive. I don't think it's dumb for them to want a president who is more careful about what he says. A president with a microphone can quell a riot. Or start a war. What he says does matter.
    Last edited by JKDS; 01-18-2017 at 10:18 PM.
  49. #4249
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I think statements can provide insight into someone's character. I also think the context of statements can be politicized. But I don't think presidents should get a free pass on everything they've ever said, and I don't think it's stupid to care about that.

    I think it's OK for your friends to not like trump because they perceive him as being too offensive. I don't think it's dumb for them to want a president who is more careful about what he says. A president with a microphone can quell a riot. Or start a war. What he says does matter.
    I don't disagree. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm referring to: a friend was upset about Trump having told Howard Stern in 2005 that it's hard for a woman to be a 10 if very flat-chested. She thought that was demeaning to women. I pointed out to her that she has said (and I have said) much more demeaning things about women, and she, well, more or less acknowledged so, and that was that.

    I've seen this kind of thing a lot. It's like when somebody is famous, they're thought of as special to such a degree that they are assumed to not have led a more or less normal life up to that point.
  50. #4250
    ^^That example is not demeaning btw. But that's beside the point. The pussy grabbing statement isn't demeaning either.
  51. #4251
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If prior presidents have said bad things, it's ok for future presidents to say bad things?
    You're just trolling now. Who is this person you think should be president who has never said anything controversial, offensive, or opinionated? Are you saying only a sinless angel can be president and everyone else is disqualified?

    And who decides what's "bad"? Trump told Rep Lewis to do his job, and the NY Times went on a two page rant about how Trump doesn't care about civil rights. They crucified Mitt Romney. Even Arianna Grande, a flash in the pan entertainer who's opinion matters 0%, is getting a mountain of dog shit right now because she gave herself a pat on the back.

    This country is ADDICTED to outrage. If you open your mouth at all, you automatically piss off at least 20% percent of the world.

    Should our president be a mute?

    It's nice that you've thought up this ideal little dream utopia where all of our leaders and public figures only say things that are neutral. But that world only exists in your mind. Here on earth...everyone's resume has blemishes.
  52. #4252
    And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.
  53. #4253
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're just trolling now. Who is this person you think should be president who has never said anything controversial, offensive, or opinionated? Are you saying only a sinless angel can be president and everyone else is disqualified?

    And who decides what's "bad"? Trump told Rep Lewis to do his job, and the NY Times went on a two page rant about how Trump doesn't care about civil rights. They crucified Mitt Romney. Even Arianna Grande, a flash in the pan entertainer who's opinion matters 0%, is getting a mountain of dog shit right now because she gave herself a pat on the back.

    This country is ADDICTED to outrage. If you open your mouth at all, you automatically piss off at least 20% percent of the world.

    Should our president be a mute?

    It's nice that you've thought up this ideal little dream utopia where all of our leaders and public figures only say things that are neutral. But that world only exists in your mind. Here on earth...everyone's resume has blemishes.
    I'm only summarizing arguments. I think I was fair in my summation.
  54. #4254
  55. #4255
    Some highlights:

    “I wondered how fake news starts so I quickly set up a fake account, didn’t bother following anyone, used a stupid picture of a bad guy from a film … and sent him a message. I didn’t think he’d get back to me, because it was ludicrous.”


    And my favorite:

    BuzzFeed News contacted Watson to ask why he published the content of the DMs without checking whether the information was real. He replied only: “BuzzFeed is cancer. BuzzFeed is fake news.”
  56. #4256
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I'm only summarizing arguments. I think I was fair in my summation.
    No, you're 'simplifying'. Way way way simplifying. Not the same as 'summarizing'.

    I still wondering, who is this living saint who's never said anything offensive, controversial, or opinionated and should be given the presidency? Can you name anyone who has maintained your standard for proper speech for their entire life?
  57. #4257
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.
    Who exposed it as a hoax? The New York Times?

    On December 10, 2016, The New York Times published an article that analyzed the claims that the theory proposed.[2] They emphasized that:

    The theory claimed "cheese pizza" was code for "child pornography," since the term had been used in this context previously on the website 4Chan. This was extrapolated to other mentions of food in non-political emails. However, as the Times pointed out, the "Podesta brothers were famous in Washington circles for their Italian cooking and big salon and fund-raising dinners, often cooked by their mother."
    Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted that striking similarities may also be found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.
    A photograph was circulated purporting to show President Barack Obama playing ping pong with a child inside Comet Ping Pong. The original picture hangs framed in the White House, where it was taken.
    Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; however, the restaurant in-fact has no basement, and the picture used to support this claim was taken from another facility.
    Theorists claimed to have a picture of restaurant owner Alefantis wearing a t-shirt endorsing pedophilia. However, the image was of another person entirely, and the shirt, which read "I [heart symbol] L’Enfant," was actually a reference to the L’Enfant Cafe-Bar in DC, whose owner was pictured in the image, and which itself was named after Pierre Charles L'Enfant, designer of much of the layout of Washington, DC.
    Theorists claimed John and Tony Podesta kidnapped Madeleine McCann using police sketches which were, in fact, two sketches of the same suspect taken from the descriptions of two eye witnesses. Furthermore, the claim that the brothers were in Portugal at the time of the kidnapping was sourced only to Victurus Libertas, notable for, among other things, suggesting that the queen of England is a reptilian alien.
    (pizzagate wikipedia page)

    That isn't a debunking. Am I missing something? This is merely a counter-argument which happens to be exactly as strong as the argument it counters... both lack evidence, both rely on the reader to have faith in the sincerity of the author.

    Like, the reference to the Podestas and little Madeline... they point out that the efits were actually of one man, who wasn't necessarily a suspect... well that doesn't prove it wasn't either of the Podestas, it's also odd because the two efits do not look like the same man. But whatever, it's a description, not a photo, so maybe it is the same man, and maybe it has nothing to do with Podesta... but that is merely a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

    The Podestas have links to the region of Portugal in question so it's not an unreasonable line of enquiry. It doesn't seem legally proper for a website of the stature of Wikipedia to insist that the connection has no basis, especially if investigations are ongoing or if the case remains unsolved. It would have the potential to compromise any future trial. Imagine if either or both of the Podestas were formally accused of involvement and he/they stood trial... imagine then if one of the jurors decided to look at the "pizzagate" wikipedia page. They could conclude that the case on Podesta has already been disproven based on evidence that is not properly presented.

    Maybe pizzagate is a hoax. I haven't yet seen anything that confirms it as such though. On the contrary, the fact that it is being presented as debunked, and given I have not seen a satisfactory debunking, means I am more suspicious than I was before I googled "pizzagate debunking".
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-19-2017 at 11:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #4258
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who exposed it as a hoax?
    Pretty much every journalistic establishment in the world that is even slightly reputable believes that it's nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The New York Times?
    Among many many others. There was also the vigilante who took up the cause and found squadooche.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    (pizzagate wikipedia page)

    That isn't a debunking. Am I missing something?
    Evidence. A victim. A witness. Facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is merely a counter-argument which happens to be exactly as strong as the argument it counters...
    'Exactly as strong?' I don't even know what to say to that. One side says "the guy wore pro-pedophile t shirt". The other side says "no, it's shirt from that cafe...over there". The fact that the cafe exists, and sells that T shirt, kinda makes the latter side's argument a little stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    both lack evidence, both rely on the reader to have faith in the sincerity of the author.
    The burden of evidence is on the accuser. And in this case, the author you're placing faith in...also believes the Queen is a lizard.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like, the reference to the Podestas and little Madeline... they point out that the efits were actually of one man, who wasn't necessarily a suspect... well that doesn't prove it wasn't either of the Podestas,
    It doesn't prove it wasn't YOU

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    it's also odd because the two efits do not look like the same man. But whatever, it's a description, not a photo, so maybe it is the same man, and maybe it has nothing to do with Podesta... but that is merely a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
    A hypothesis based on what?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The Podestas have links to the region of Portugal in question so it's not an unreasonable line of enquiry.
    Of course it is! Unless you also believe that anyone who was living or visiting Portugal at that time is equally a suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It doesn't seem legally proper for a website of the stature of Wikipedia to insist that the connection has no basis,
    I look shit up on Wiki too. Pretty often. It's mostly pretty useful, but it's not all facts. I wouldn't elevate a website that anyone can edit to any kind of "stature".

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    especially if investigations are ongoing
    They aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    or if the case remains unsolved.
    A case has to be opened first.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It would have the potential to compromise any future trial. Imagine if either or both of the Podestas were formally accused of involvement and he/they stood trial... imagine then if one of the jurors decided to look at the "pizzagate" wikipedia page. They could conclude that the case on Podesta has already been disproven based on evidence that is not properly presented.
    Imagine if someone saw OJ fleeing arrest in a white Bronco while threatening to kill himself. They would surely believe he's guilty and undoubtedly convict him as a murder...........oh wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maybe pizzagate is a hoax. I haven't yet seen anything that confirms it as such though. On the contrary, the fact that it is being presented as debunked, and given I have not seen a satisfactory debunking, means I am more suspicious than I was before I googled "pizzagate debunking".
    What have you seen that confirms it's not a hoax? Can you point to one credible piece of evidence that isn't steeped in conjecture?

    Seriously, what will it take to make you believe that it's not real?

    They way you're thinking, until she dies and has an autopsy, the Queen might be a lizard.
  59. #4259
    Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

    You're forgetting that banana.
  60. #4260
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ... a website of the stature of Wikipedia
    Best laugh I had all day, thanks man.
  61. #4261
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

    You're forgetting that banana.
    I think I get what you're saying. I'm not sure which is "our side" though. Or who "the other guy" is.
  62. #4262
    'Our' side is whichever side the poster happens to be on.

    By the logic Ong used above, Alien Hillary is a credible theory because no-one's proved it isn't true yet.

    By the same logic, the anti-Ong would argue Russian hacking is credible. The real Ong can dismiss that theory because someone associated with something that had 'wiki' in its name said it wasn't true.

    The standard of evidence depends on what you want to believe.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-19-2017 at 01:46 PM.
  63. #4263
    I certainly understand the human instinct to fill in answers where there are none. It's obviously a forceful compulsion. I mean, how many billions of people on this earth believe in religion?

    For me, the missing piece in all this is "Why did this story get so much legs"? Occam's razor would say "cause it's true". Dismissing that, I need to fill in the answer some other way. And my personal opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it, is that the story got legs because the mainstream media let it get legs. Or...possibly even helped it along.

    I think it helps their credibility if the term "fake news" can be tied to such an obviously contrived story. It makes their own "fake news" sins seem so much less serious by comparison. I mean, so what if Brian Williams made up a story about a helicopter attack. At least he's not accusing a former president of human trafficking.

    The MSM has spent the better part of a decade pushing their narrative, and using some pretty underhanded tactics to do it. Tactics that would normally get them branded as "fake news". But instead, people now have this pizza-headed monster to associate with the term, and that makes things like the editing of Zimmerman's 911 call, or Susan Rice's video-blaming tour seem really small by comparison.
  64. #4264
    I dunno about lizards, but alien... maybe.

    Of course it is! Unless you also believe that anyone who was living or visiting Portugal at that time is equally a suspect.
    Anybody who also matches the description, yeah. I mean if I had links to the Algarve, and they issued an efit that vaguely looked like me, I'd be straight on the phone to police to assist with their enquiries... unless I had something to hide, of course. It's a reasonable line of enquiry that wasn't seriously followed up. The whole Madeline case was iffy from the start.

    'Exactly as strong?'
    My apologies. Exactly as weak is the correct language here.

    The burden of evidence is on the accuser. And in this case, the author you're placing faith in...also believes the Queen is a lizard.
    Yeah and this is where we start to get into deeper paranoia. The fact this is even mentioned in the wiki article demonstrates a deliberate attempt by the author to discredit further the idea that there's truth to the pizzagate idea. If this dude believes in pizzagate, lizard queens, and god, does that mean all Christians should reassess their theological position?

    I like the lizard queen theory because it's god damn fucking amusing, and it's theoretically possible if we say alien instead of lizard. I'm not so quick to dismiss it as the average person. But even I still only assign this possibility a very small probability.

    Pizzagate is different. Those logos, the only way they can "debunk" that is to point at other companies, such as AOL. Well, that only serves to cast a doubt over the integrity of that company, and to further support the idea that it's rampant in the system. We saw here in the UK with the Jimmy Savile case that paedophilia exists in the system at the highest levels. Savile was friends with the Queen, hung out with Prime Ministers. He was protected, his name wasn't publically dragged through the mud until he was dead. People knew what he was doing, Johnny Rotten spoke out in 1978. If our Royal family are willing to protect man like Savile, why should I be surprised if it's systematic? It's not like pizzagate was what opened my eyes to all this horridness.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #4265
    Ong, just out of curiosity, why do you care so much? Is this part of your Hillary hatred, or is it just a side interest?

    If I were to find out Kellyanne Conway were a serial killer, this wouldn't move the needle much for my beliefs on Trump.

    I mean, if there is a harem of sex-trafficked boys in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, I hope they are freed and whoever is responsible is thrown in jail for a long looong time, but like beyond that, I don't really care ...
  66. #4266
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And who decides what's "bad"? Trump told Rep Lewis to do his job, and the NY Times went on a two page rant about how Trump doesn't care about civil rights. They crucified Mitt Romney. Even Arianna Grande, a flash in the pan entertainer who's opinion matters 0%, is getting a mountain of dog shit right now because she gave herself a pat on the back.

    This country is ADDICTED to outrage. If you open your mouth at all, you automatically piss off at least 20% percent of the world
    Yep. Yep yep yep.
  67. #4267
    What have you seen that confirms it's not a hoax? Can you point to one credible piece of evidence that isn't steeped in conjecture?
    Yeah, the logos. That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #4268
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Good. InfoWars sucks. They practice the same faux journalism as CNN and Cuckington Post.
  69. #4269
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Ong, just out of curiosity, why do you care so much? Is this part of your Hillary hatred, or is it just a side interest?
    What makes me care if paedophilia is systematic within our political class? Are you really asking me that question?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #4270
    I mean what do you care if Hitler killed 6 million Jews? Did he kill you? No!
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #4271
    Of course I should probably investigate further before opining since Jizzfeed is equally unreliable.
  72. #4272
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.
    It hasn't been exposed as a hoax. It hasn't been exposed as anything. It is not public knowledge that it has even been investigated. I'm not saying it should be investigated; perhaps the signs are not distinguishable enough from coincidence that it doesn't warrant an investigation. But the only thing that can be demonstrated to be hoax-y is so-called journalists who claim it is a proven hoax.

    Also the pedo stuff I post is partially just for giggles. I find some of these coincidences too weird, but I'm not positive they're not merely coincidences. Weirder things have happened.
  73. #4273
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

    You're forgetting that banana.
    An issue is that the pedo stuff isn't exactly news. Most of those who discuss this stuff don't call themselves journalists and they don't claim to be reporting news but instead ideas.

    The way Swann reported it is almost exactly how real news is reported.
  74. #4274
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anybody who also matches the description, yeah. I mean if I had links to the Algarve, and they issued an efit that vaguely looked like me, I'd be straight on the phone to police to assist with their enquiries... unless I had something to hide, of course.
    Or maybe you already had a rock solid alibi. You were in the US running the most expensive presidential campaign in history. And why would you be 'straight on the phone'? Why is it your responsibility to monitor police investigations in foreign countries on the off chance an efit of a suspect looks like you? And even if you did notice such a thing, what kind of attention are you bringing on yourself if call them up demanding they eliminate you as a suspect?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah and this is where we start to get into deeper paranoia. The fact this is even mentioned in the wiki article demonstrates a deliberate attempt by the author to discredit further the idea that there's truth to the pizzagate idea.
    What?? That fact was mentioned only because the source that made the claim is the ONLY source linking podesta to portugal. When you're a news organization running a story that's not corroborated by any other news source....or evidence....then you must stand on your credibility. Mentioning the lizard queen stuff speaks directly to credibility. Hence it is enormously relevant. Not a diversionary tactic to obscure the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If this dude believes in pizzagate, lizard queens, and god, does that mean all Christians should reassess their theological position?
    If ALL Christians were basing their faith in god on the claims of that one man, and that one man proves to be fantastically un-credible. Then yes, they should ALL reasses their theological position.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I like the lizard queen theory because it's god damn fucking amusing, and it's theoretically possible if we say alien instead of lizard. I'm not so quick to dismiss it as the average person. But even I still only assign this possibility a very small probability.
    So I've always wondered who buys those rags at the grocery checkout running headlines about subterranean mole people blackmailing the mayor of new york so they can get HBO in their sewer hideout. Now I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Pizzagate is different. Those logos, the only way they can "debunk" that is to point at other companies, such as AOL. Well, that only serves to cast a doubt over the integrity of that company, and to further support the idea that it's rampant in the system.
    "only serves"? Are you kidding? Isn't it as simple as demonstrating that the design is common, and harmless?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We saw here in the UK with the Jimmy Savile case that paedophilia exists in the system at the highest levels. Savile was friends with the Queen, hung out with Prime Ministers. He was protected, his name wasn't publically dragged through the mud until he was dead. People knew what he was doing, Johnny Rotten spoke out in 1978. If our Royal family are willing to protect man like Savile, why should I be surprised if it's systematic? It's not like pizzagate was what opened my eyes to all this horridness.
    I'm really not familiar with the Savile case, but if you want an example of real systematic pedophilia, just look at the Catholic diocese in Boston MA. That shit REALLY happened. But that doesn't mean that I now believe that every accused predator who is found to be innocent is being "protected".
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-19-2017 at 02:49 PM.
  75. #4275
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    But instead, people now have this pizza-headed monster to associate with the term, and that makes things like the editing of Zimmerman's 911 call, or Susan Rice's video-blaming tour seem really small by comparison.
    I doubt what goes on with pizzagate would change any of that. Nobody cared about the MSM lying about these things before. Indeed, it may be because of the whole fake news accusation by the MSM and people like Cernovich turning it around on them that people are even looking at the MSM fakery with scrutiny now.

    It's like Crichton said, the media has unearned credibility. They've been caught in lies many, many times, and yet nobody cares.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •