Where did you find this nutter to talk over the Channel 7 news broadcast? Or are you trying to get us to believe that was the actual audio from the news?
"Izz Dus or Izz Dus Not OhFishyal Plantashun InFowMashun!! Yoo Knowz Weez Been Twained Not To Axcept No InFowMashun Unless It Is Apwoooved By A Plantashun Cowpowation!!!
DenMawk Vessay Dink He Slick!!
Tryin' To Pass Off InfoMashun We Could Verify On Our Own!!
If It Down't Say CBS or Fox or PBS We trained to IgNoor It! To Hell With Independent Cwitical Analysus!!
So what your saying is to believe anything and everything, just as long as it's unverifiable and from a dubious source claiming a conspiracy?
No. What you should do, is take the time to compare and evaluate competing interpretations of various facts and phenomenons.
A "dubious source" is only "dubious" to the extent that it is labeled "dubious" by one or more entities which seek to deem it as such.
One man's "conspiracy theory" is another man's "plausible scenario". To claim that the former is the latter, or vice versa, without any consideration of the nature and motivations of the actors from which the competing truth claims originated, is the height of hubris and wrong-headedness.
While that arrest in los angeles was very intriguing for a lot of reasons, none of those reasons have anything to do with the unmitigated garbage in that accompanying youtube video.
"One man's "conspiracy theory" is another man's "plausible scenario". GC
Actually, no. You have not (and likely cannot) provided any verifiable evidence. Conspiracy theorists thrive on explanations like the sentence you provided above. Why do you actually believe your statements should be allowed equal consideration and weight?
This is fallacy and you know it. The internet has provided you with a forum, and possibly a new subtype of Folie à Deaux.
All you have to do is provide some facts or evidence that are verifiable. Strange that you never seem to be able to. Strange indeed.
what is the top image depicting?
ReplyDeletesorry bra i still don't get it.
ReplyDeleteWhere did you find this nutter to talk over the Channel 7 news broadcast? Or are you trying to get us to believe that was the actual audio from the news?
ReplyDelete"was the actual audio from the news?" DMG
ReplyDeletelol ... the "actual" news.
[TRANSLATION:]
"Izz Dus or Izz Dus Not OhFishyal Plantashun InFowMashun!! Yoo Knowz Weez Been Twained Not To Axcept No InFowMashun Unless It Is Apwoooved By A Plantashun Cowpowation!!!
DenMawk Vessay Dink He Slick!!
Tryin' To Pass Off InfoMashun We Could Verify On Our Own!!
If It Down't Say CBS or Fox or PBS We trained to IgNoor It! To Hell With Independent Cwitical Analysus!!
We Slaaaaves Aint We?!"
So what your saying is to believe anything and everything, just as long as it's unverifiable and from a dubious source claiming a conspiracy?
ReplyDeleteYes, we get it...now perhaps you'll answer the question.
So what your saying is to believe anything and everything, just as long as it's unverifiable and from a dubious source claiming a conspiracy?
ReplyDeleteNo. What you should do, is take the time to compare and evaluate competing interpretations of various facts and phenomenons.
A "dubious source" is only "dubious" to the extent that it is labeled "dubious" by one or more entities which seek to deem it as such.
One man's "conspiracy theory" is another man's "plausible scenario". To claim that the former is the latter, or vice versa, without any consideration of the nature and motivations of the actors from which the competing truth claims originated, is the height of hubris and wrong-headedness.
While that arrest in los angeles was very intriguing for a lot of reasons, none of those reasons have anything to do with the unmitigated garbage in that accompanying youtube video.
ReplyDeleteyet another,
EPIC FAIL!
Jack Rubenstein was obviously playing his role in "The Unspeakable" scenario.
ReplyDeleteLee Harvey Oswald was "The Greatest Patsie of All Time."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224
Gray Conservative,
ReplyDelete"One man's "conspiracy theory" is another man's "plausible scenario". GC
Actually, no. You have not (and likely cannot) provided any verifiable evidence. Conspiracy theorists thrive on explanations like the sentence you provided above. Why do you actually believe your statements should be allowed equal consideration and weight?
This is fallacy and you know it. The internet has provided you with a forum, and possibly a new subtype of Folie à Deaux.
All you have to do is provide some facts or evidence that are verifiable. Strange that you never seem to be able to. Strange indeed.