Tucker Carlson - The Deep State Exposed - Rise of the Totalitarianism (1 Viewer)

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,277
The left controls education and main steam media that's pretty much checkmate
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
31,026
The left is claiming that since we haven't any money trail to an account controlled by Joe, he isn't getting money. I'm just saying there are other ways. and we already know about the maze of LLC's. Credit cards with balances paid by the LLC and interest free loans are just two ways.

It's not just Bobulinski. His statements and evidence simply corrobate what was found on Hunter's PC and provided by Hunter's two partners who are in or going to jail.

It is really bad to stiff your business associates. When they go to jail or get cut out of the deal and you remain free, you think they're not going to talk? OK, maybe if you're the head of a crime family they'll be too afraid to squeal. Like the Clinton's. No one squeals on the Clintons.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,270
I used to think of Wikipedea as a fairly fact based neutral platform from which to get information. That is, unti l I found this:


Just look at the "New Work Post reporting " and "Reactions" sections, and it is basically a one-sided story that looks like it came straight from CNN. I only looked this up because I saw an article in Breitbart and the purging of Conservative media since Trump got elected.


Disappointing.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,675
I used to think of Wikipedea as a fairly fact based neutral platform from which to get information. That is, unti l I found this:
Welcome to the "awakening". It's repugnant when people distort "facts". That has also been an "awakening" form me. I ran across blatant unnecessary digs at Trump in the Handmaids coverage. I complained about it, the response was that published sources were being cited, which was true. A difficult situation when the source material is garbage itself. It's unfortunate when people distort "facts". Living in a free society, has "benefits" and "downsides". Occasionally that means having to live with "facts" without proper vetting. I Nevertheless, overall, Wikipedia serves a valuable public service.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
31,026
I've been a regular 60 Minutes fan for most of my life. But this past year, they've been running anti-trump stories on a regular basis. Last night's was no exception. They started in very grave voices about how close the race in Ohio is and how no Republican has ever won the Presidency without winning Ohio. So, I turned it off. Apparently they don't know that Trump is actually a Democrat who ran as a Republican because he knew he was never going to get the Democrat nomination out of Hillary's hands and he knew he needed a party machine, ANY party, behind him because it is really tough for independents to win elections. Ross Perot came closer than anyone and he got crushed at the end with "fake news". I don't know if it really was fake but it killed his chances. I became a huge Perot fan back in 1984 when I read On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett (I'm a big Follett fan also).

 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,675
I used to think of Wikipedea as a fairly fact based neutral platform from which to get information. That is, unti l I found this:


Just look at the "New Work Post reporting " and "Reactions" sections, and it is basically a one-sided story that looks like it came straight from CNN. I only looked this up because I saw an article in Breitbart and the purging of Conservative media since Trump got elected.


Disappointing.
Ran across this headline: Co-founder says Wikipedia's neutrality 'long gone,' cites leftist bias.
“The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone,” Mr. Sanger told Fox News in a new interview. “Wikipedia’s ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work.”

Mr. Sanger, 52, co-founded the site with Jimmy Wales in January 2001. He said Wikipedia’s turn away from neutrality is “disheartening.
Very disheartening.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,726
Back when I first found out that anyone could edit Wikipedia pages (literally, anyone), I wrote it off as a relatively meaningless effort.
Not because I don't believe in the value of experience-based, peer-reviewed, community-sourced information (like, for example, AWF!), but because such an interpretation of a work that includes things likely to be subjective and biased is silly.
At least, it's certainly silly that people consider it authoritative! But then again, what IS authoritative anymore anyway? It's all just pieces of an increasingly complex and nuanced puzzle...that we call ___________

I don't necessarily blame Wikipedia. What exactly can they do, after all, about a platform that allows anyone to edit it? Then someone else to come along and "put it back", or change it more, then someone else to do the same, then.......ad infinitum. You can try to build in fancy ways of building in "better and better until perfect", but clearly, there is no such magic bullet.

So then you build in reputation tags, and likes, and stars, and levels, and blah blah blah....and the very best case scenario you can possibly could out with? MAJORITY OPINION.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
31,026
If rational liberals are waking up, maybe there is hope after all. I'm sure Facebook and Twitter will cancel her soon.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,675
The festive mostly peaceful rally at the Capital building and the associated Congressional hearings seems to have promoted more hysterical Democratic outrage demanding a totalitarian surveillance state to combat so-called "domestic terrorists" as "enemies of the State" to allegedly "protect" democracy. Welcome to the newly re-vitalized reformulated "red scare" and McCarthyism. AOC may soon propose to establish an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth".

Jonathan Turley slams Dems' 'slippery slope toward censorship' of conservative outlets

 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom