Jump to content

The Fake / Biased News Media


Recommended Posts

This should worry all Canadians, even the ones that voted for sockboy:


To hear the federal Liberal government and their media toadies tell it: Yes, truckers and lurking racists (backed by anonymous foreign funders and provocateurs) are seeking to undermine our institutions.


But the biggest threat isn’t even Russian nukes. It’s the Liberal government.


The Liberals’ paranoia about sinister conspiracies, their obsession with the fantasy that domestic and foreign plotters are using shadowy money and “misinformation and disinformation” to distort the outcome of Canadian elections, coupled with their arrogant belief that they and they alone have been gifted with the ability to decide what voters should and should not see, is the biggest single menace to Canadian freedom.

You already know about the Trudeau government’s proposed legislation to give government-appointed bureaucrats the authority to pull down webpages that are legal but “inappropriate,” without first seeking permission from a judge.


But you may not have heard that the Trudeau government’s Heritage department gave nearly $3 million to the Policy Forum, headed by former Toronto Star vice-president Edward Greenspon.

The purpose of the tax-funded grant? To identify “reliable” reporters and coach them on the nature and forms of misinformation and how to report on it during an election.


This is the most frightening initiative I have seen in a very long time, especially when paired with Liberal efforts to regulate Internet content and to have senior bureaucrats monitor election messaging for political incorrectness (which was done in the 2019 general election).

According to an email obtained through freedom information by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Heritage department and Policy Forum are advocating all-expenses-paid training workshops for 25 journalists the federal government identifies as willing to regurgitate whatever “woke” beliefs the Liberal cabinet pumps into their heads.


Frankly, no self-respecting journalist should accept being designated as “reliable” by any government. In this case, reliable is a euphemism for “compliant,” “unquestioning,” “politically correct.”


It should be seen as an insult, not an honour.


And it goes way beyond a paid junket for a couple dozen journalists.

This cadre of government-approved journalists would “ensure a regular flow of trustworthy information,” according to Greenspon.


And here is the kicker: Greenspon adds that only the federal government can ensure news is trustworthy. “One way or another it falls to government to ensure the new media ecosystem does not operate in ways contrary to the Canadian principles of peace, order and good government.”


Only by the government insinuating itself into the news-reporting process can public faith in the mainstream news be restored, Greenspon contends. Otherwise, unregulated news coverage will “further detract from public trust which is already nearing dangerous lows.”



Great …… we have a “news” organization deciding what the public should know and what they shouldn’t……..

where have we heard this before??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the Rebel/Nazi flag sighting (during the trucker protest) thoroughly investigated.

At the time, it struck me as a blatant plant and classic example of deliberate (premeditated) propaganda. It came complete with custom made flags and professional photographers who just happened to be the right place, at the right time, to cover a very brief event... lucky eh?

This is a bit difficult to follow but I think it's all we'll be seeing in the way of investigative journalism.... which actually tends to confirm my suspicions about the event itself. 


70 percenters got a lot of mileage out of this and it seems to me they should be demanding answers... perhaps even feeling as though they were deliberately manipulated and mislead. They certainly seem easily offended by other things so their lack of concern speaks to me of narrative and manipulation rather than integrity. 





Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An explanation on why Trump is right when he says the media are the Enemy of the People.

Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal Is the Ultimate American Information Operation | Opinion

Ben Weingarten  11 hrs ago

How did Hunter Biden's depraved behavior and his and his family members' dubious dealings with adversaries and oligarchs compromise and corrupt Joe Biden? What did Joe know, when did he know it and did he directly or indirectly profit? To what extent would—and today, does—the Biden family's conduct loom over vital issues of American foreign policy, and thus national security?


We were deprived of the answers to these critical questions during the 2020 election—deprived of hearing the questions asked themselves—because of one of the gravest American information operations in history, masquerading as a defense against a Russian information operation.

Now, our Ruling Class' chief organ has admitted it. It took 17 months, and 24 paragraphs into an article at first glance unrelated, but buried in a New York Times report on the apparently sprawling federal investigation into Hunter Biden, the "Paper of Record" revealed the truth we've long known: Hunter's "laptop from hell" is real.

We knew this before Joe Biden was elected. But millions of Americans didn't because the corporate media, the Deep State for which it serves as a conduit and the Big Tech that propagates their Official Narratives conspired together to suppress the true story while amplifying the politically beneficial one.

One poll shows this operation—part and parcel of a coordinated effort by our Ruling Class to use every lever of power to undermine Donald Trump while protecting Joe Biden—alone may have swung the 2020 election.

The people who purport to defend "our democracy," in other words, thwarted the republic by concealing from the public the kind of crucial information on which war and peace hinges.

The many layers to this scandal are worth recounting because they so vividly reveal a pervasive rot at the core of our country that is poised to fester absent a massive reckoning.

There's the fact the corporate media dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story out of hand, refused to pursue it and even ran interference for then-candidate Biden when directly questioned on it by then-President Trump in debate.

There's the fact the corporate media unquestioningly ran with a narrative that the story was "Russian disinformation" to justify its dismissal of it, despite lacking a scintilla of concrete evidence to substantiate that dubious claim.

There's the fact dozens of senior then-ex intelligence community (IC) officials—people whose profession ostensibly demands equipoise, analytical rigor and the setting aside of politics—fed the corporate media that narrative, abusing their positions with reckless abandon.

The more than 50 prominent IC members, former CIA directors and on down, used their names and reputations to baselessly speculate that the laptop contents and circumstances around their release "ha[d] all the classic hallmarks of a Russian information operation"—naturally in contravention of the ignored Trump administration officials actually in command of the intelligence apparatus at the time, who vigorously denied the charge. The Trump-hating spooks, like the corporate media, presented not one scintilla of evidence to justify their charge.

Sure, they hedged, admitting that"we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails...are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement... ." But they knew well Politico and others would run with headlines like: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say."

How contrived was the operation? Consider that it was a former top aide to former CIA Director John Brennan—perhaps the most Trump-deranged and notoriously dishonest of the overwhelmingly Democrat-serving officials endorsing the letter—who arranged for the letter's distribution to Politico. He delivered it to one of the Trump-loathing Deep State's friendliest of reporters—perhaps most well-known for promoting the notorious Steele dossier at the heart of the Russiagate hoax—surely knowing this would set the narrative in motion.

Almost universally, the signatories show no remorse for the con they pulled. It was all worth it for them to replace Trump with someone who spent 50 years getting every major foreign policy issue wrong, and who has kept that imperfect streak alive since he's been in office.

There's also the fact Big Tech engaged in Rubicon-crossing censorship, not only preventing people from sharing the story publicly, but in private messages, and de-platforming the sharers. Twitter admitted as much, months after the election, when the damage had been done. This set the precedent for the ever-more widespread, almost desensitizing Wrongthink censorship we see today. Donald Trump is of course banned on Twitter, and the likes of Vladimir Putin and crony Ayatollah Khamenei are free to tweet at their leisure. Chinese coronavirus information that got people banned six months ago is now the official CDC narrative promoted on social media.

The Hunter Biden laptop story looms over it all.

And where was the aforementioned media on the censorship? At very best, silent. Those who benefit most from the First Amendment have too often become the most outspoken proponents of censorship, particularly when it serves their political agenda.

These conspirators cared nothing for combating disinformation. Far from it, they are some of its most prolific purveyors.

These conspirators cared nothing about "protecting democracy." Rather than grapple with the New York Post's reporting on the laptop, and the corroborating investigations from Tucker Carlson and elsewhere, they obfuscated in service of a candidacy that would predictably result in disaster for America, liberty and justice.

They did so because of the imperative to unseat a president whose agenda was far more aligned with the ruled than the ruling. That is, they did so out of perceived self-interest, which they may believe coincides with the national interest, but which in practice has proven to do anything but. Trump threatened their power, privilege and prerogatives. He had rebuilt our military, fostered alliances and partnerships to deter enemies while reducing America's direct obligations abroad, and confronted and kept our worst adversaries at bay—led by the greatest adversary of all, Communist China. Trump consequently kept America out of wars. Trump was neither the crazed cowboy with the nuclear codes nor the isolationist Russian stooge his adversaries vacillated in attacking him as, depending upon the week. He was a peace-through-strength nationalist, and his record proved it. Was this his great sin in the Ruling Class' eyes?

There is still more intrigue to this story. Why did The New York Times feel compelled to admit it only now, after reporters for mainstream publications like the aforementioned Politico had confirmed the authenticity of much of the laptop's contents months back?

Is it simply because the case against Hunter Biden, billed as a tax matter, but which the Times reports has evolved into one centering on money laundering and potential Foreign Agents Registration Acts charges, is built so heavily on the substance of the laptop, making it impossible to report on the case while outright ignoring it?

Or is there something bigger at play concerning the president, and his troubled son?

Regardless, the Times' almost-inadvertent admission perfectly reflects the entire contrived effort.

Our Ruling Class' over-the-top obsession with Russian information and influence has served as a diversion from the information operations it has been running against domestic political foes—even in league with foreign actors like the Ukrainians, as my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry has reported.

Trump-Russia collusion was an American information operation.

Hunter Biden's laptop being "Russian disinformation" was an American information operation.

Phony stories, particularly those leaked out by our national security apparatus—like those of "Russian bounties in Afghanistan," or "Trump called dead American soldiers 'losers'"—are American information operations.

These operations raise further questions: What other such gambits have they executed that we don't know about? What else could they do, and will they do, to a Trump in 2024, or any other candidate they perceive to be a threat going forward?

The American mind, and therefore the body politic, is not imperiled by some Russian troll farm.

No, outside of the schools, which cultivate suicidal anti-American self-loathing and Wokedom, the great threat in the information sphere derives from a weaponized, hyper-political national security apparatus unmoored from the people it exists to defend, a progressive press that does its bidding and a like-minded Big Tech behemoth that works hand-in-hand with them to censor and control narratives.

It is infinitely more insidious when the institutions we rely upon to keep us safe, to inform us and to enable free and open discourse conspire against those countrymen with whom they disagree than when foreign adversaries themselves meddle.

We expect adversaries to attack us. To attack Americans like adversaries is to make America like its adversaries.

This is an existential threat to our republic.

And if none of these actors are ever held to account, it guarant


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote of the day and I stopped reading at this sentence:

Russian troops are eating abandoned pet dogs as they run out of poor-quality rations that have quickly dwindled among the badly trained conscripts sent to Ukraine.

Now, is it true or is it propaganda? You have no way of knowing. The media and the government that controls it are so bloody corrupted that you can't take these reports at face value. 

Look at all of the negative assertions packed into single unsubstantiated sentence... it's deliberate, it's crafted, and it's aimed squarely at people too lazy to cypher out the truth because finding the truth is such thirsty work.

But how much of it is true? That's an honest question by the way, I have no idea. The construction of the sentence itself provides the best clue IMO.

Like a host of other issues, you're now going to have to wait about two years to find out and by then, depending on circumstances, more likely than not you won't care anymore. 

It's a perfect example of why taking this road, allowing it, voting for it, or even accepting it with a shrug, is such a bad idea. There's lot's more where this came from too and you'll find it on offer at every newsstand on Crazy Island.

Vote on policy.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 7:14 AM, Wolfhunter said:

Like a host of other issues, you're now going to have to wait about two years to find out

The only way there would actually be a "reckoning" here is if the media was truly independent, they're clearly not. This wasn't a mistake, an oversight, or a short delay caused by the quest for verifiable facts.

it was deliberate, it had an effect on the election results, and everybody on both sides of the aisle knows it. These two year delays simply camouflage the partisan trend as a series of isolated and unrelated incidents. Once that's achieved, it's easy to frame the subject matter as a "learning moment" well after the fact (when the damage is done).

In other words, the goal is/was either inflicting or avoiding damage at a critical juncture. The pretence of examining "how it happened" is a deliberate deflection of "why it happened." The why part is the only aspect that matters, you won't get that answer, and that's deliberate too.

Washington Post editorial board admits Hunter Biden story is a 'reckoning' for media

Link to comment
Share on other sites


APRIL 8, 2022

When Fox News viewers flip to CNN, their opinions shift too, study finds

by Edward Lempinen, University of California - Berkeley

Staunchly conservative Fox News viewers who spent a month tuning in to CNN instead reported a broad shift in their political opinions—until they returned to watching Fox, according to new research co-authored at UC Berkeley.

After nearly four weeks of watching CNN in September 2020, the Fox News regulars remained firmly conservative. Still, the study found, they were more supportive of voting by mail, less likely to believe that Democratic candidate Joe Biden wanted to eliminate all police funding, and had less positive evaluations of then-President Donald Trump and other Republican politicians.

The effect, however, was short-lived. Two months after the study period ended, most of the participants had abandoned CNN, and the changes in their opinions had faded away, said the study by political scientists David E. Broockman at UC Berkeley and Joshua L. Kalla, who received his Ph.D. at Berkeley and is now on the faculty at Yale University.

In an interview, Broockman said that the increasing influence of partisan media, such as Fox, CNN and MSNBC, raises concerns about the nation's political health.

"Partisan media aren't just putting a thumb on the scale for their side," he said. "They're also hiding information that voters need to hold politicians accountable. That's not just good for their side and bad for the other side—it's bad for democracy, and for all of us."

Still, Broockman stressed that the research offers cause for hope in an era of deep political polarization.

"Even among the most orthodox partisans and partisan media viewers," he said, "those who receive a sustained diet of information that helps them see the bigger picture actually are open-minded enough to understand that their side isn't doing a perfect job, either."

The draft research was posted online last week and is currently under peer review.

At the start, they were devoted to Fox News

Broockman and Kalla started with a premise: Earlier studies suggested that viewers of partisan media would reject information offered by an opposing source as inherently untrustworthy. If partisan media users would, in effect, switch sides for a period of time, research could assess the persuasive powers of such media.

Trump was president when the study began, and the researchers had a limited budget. They hypothesized that Fox concealed information about Trump's performance, and that created a window for study. Had a Democrat been president, they wrote, they would have reversed the study, asking CNN viewers to switch to Fox.

The researchers identified 763 individuals who were willing to watch a different network for at least one hour per week. Those viewers "were overwhelmingly strongly conservative and politically engaged," the co-authors wrote. Virtually all of them were white, and they were generally older, with an average age of 54.

And they were devoted to Fox News, watching an average of 14 hours a week of prime-time programming that features such popular and controversial figures as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Some 40% of those subjects were randomly assigned to the main study group and were offered $15 an hour to watch CNN rather than Fox during weeknight, prime-time hours. To make sure that they were actually watching CNN instead of Fox, the subjects were given weekly "quiz surveys" about what was on CNN when they had signed up to watch.

The other study participants were not offered financial incentives to watch CNN, but the researchers kept surveying them.

From Aug. 31 to Sept. 25, 2020, participants in the main group watched an average of 5.8 hours of CNN per week.

One nation, two cable news realities

Broockman and Kalla closely evaluated both Fox and CNN news coverage in that period, which coincided with an intensifying campaign just two months before the election. Differences in the networks' coverage that month were stark.

Fox focused intensively on racial issues and racial protests that had followed the police killing of George Floyd a few months earlier. Democrats were portrayed as aligned with the tactics and demands of radical and sometimes violent protesters.

While the COVID-19 pandemic was still in its pre-vaccine phase, Fox was largely downplaying the threat.

"Fox News was essentially giving its viewers no information about the fact that infection rates were much higher in the U.S. than in other countries, or about some of the mistakes Trump had made managing the pandemic," Broockman explained.

Fox also covered pandemic-related efforts to expand voting by mail, but suggested that this would expand the risk of election fraud.

CNN's coverage of the pandemic focused heavily on the severity of the crisis and Trump's seeming failures in addressing it, they found. And its coverage of voting by mail was largely sympathetic.

The news changed viewers' opinions, but not their values

On these issues and others, the switch to CNN seemed to have a powerful impact.

To be sure, conservatives did not become liberals, and Trump supporters did not suddenly embrace Biden. Attitudes about policing, climate change and race were largely unchanged.

But when compared to viewers in the unpaid group who had less incentive to watch CNN, those in the main group who changed their viewing for a month were:

  • more likely to agree that if Trump made a mistake, Fox News would not cover it;
  • more likely to believe that the Trump campaign was not taking significant precautions against COVID at its campaign rallies;
  • less likely to believe that Democrats were trying to steal the 2020 election with fraudulent mail-in ballots and more likely to support voting by mail;
  • less likely to believe that if Biden were elected, more police would be shot by Black Lives Matter activists; and
  • generally more critical in their evaluations of Trump and Republican politicians.

"We're not turning them into an MSNBC or CNN audience," Broockman said. "But they start to realize, "You know, maybe Trump isn't doing as good a job on handling the coronavirus as I thought." They start to be aware of some new information, and they're not just rejecting it as fake news. They're saying, "I still like Trump, but maybe he could do a better job at this.'"

Why did these shifts occur? Kalla and Broockman described a bias resulting from "partisan coverage filtering"—a phenomenon in which partisan outlets selectively report information that's more favorable to their side in political conflict, which leads viewers to learn different sets of biased information.

The more that people watch their favorite network, the more its coverage "replenishes" partisan beliefs and loyalties, they wrote. In effect, the biased coverage drives polarization and constantly reinforces it, giving the networks' biases "tremendous ongoing power."

If that cycle is broken, then people can expand their understanding. But the findings also point to the risk that partisan media pose for democracy.

"How can a voter hold a politician accountable for an act of malfeasance if they do not know it occurred?" the authors asked in their study. "Or, alternatively, how can voters reward a … politician for good performance if their chosen media network does not inform them of it?"

The shifts faded, and viewers returned to set positions

The changes persisted after the month-long study period closed, at least briefly.

Three days after the period closed, the divergence between the main study group and the group that watched less CNN was substantial on issues such as COVID, race and election security. Overall, the study found, the main group was "far less likely" than the unpaid group to view Fox's priority issues as important, it saw COVID as a more important threat.

But while the main study group's trust of Trump fell, its trust of Biden did not rise. While it viewed Fox less favorably, it did not view CNN more favorably.

After two months had passed, the authors found, the Fox News viewers had returned almost completely to their earlier viewing habits—and to their former political opinions.

Still, the findings offer a signal of hope that even deep differences in a polarized public are not set in cement. Change, the research suggests, is possible.

Former President Barack Obama cited the Broockman-Kalla research yesterday as a cause for optimism in remarks at a conference on democracy and disinformation hosted by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and The Atlantic magazine.

"I think we underestimate the degree of pliability in our opinions and our views," Obama told the audience. "I take that as hopeful…. The divisions that we see in our democracy—of race, of region, of faith, of identity—those are there. They are not creations of social media, they're not creations of a particular network. They're deeply rooted, and they're hard to work through."

Citing the famous quote by Abraham Lincoln, Obama continued: "You can either encourage the better angels of folks' nature, or the worst. Democracy is premised on the idea that we can come up with processes, including how we share information and argue about information, that encourages our better angels. And I think that's possible."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of perspective is a huge problem here… surely choosing to consume news from a single source stands as a contributing factor in its absence.

The trouble is that It’s everywhere, it invades everything. I know people who oppose 98% deet in mosquito repellants. Their position is that nobody needs it and thus they support the ban. What they’re really saying though is that they don’t need it.

I bought a case of it before it was banned (because I need it). Those opposed have likely never spent a hot day cutting wood in a swamp at the height of mosquito season… perspective will make you a believer. That's about the only time i need it or use it; nothing else works. Their perspective comes from people slathering the stuff over babies (at family gatherings) in the big city… the very definition of lack of perspective IMO. 

My point here (with the deet thing) is that lack of perspective has infiltrated the simplest of things used in daily life. You can’t get oil paint anymore, you can’t get 98% deet anymore, you can’t even get pressure treated wood anymore.

Not because it was bad if used as directed, but simply because most people lacked the perspective to use these things as they were intended to be used. Now we’re replacing 5/4 decking every 7 years instead of once a lifetime and complaining about deforestation. It has its place, and that place is most definitely not on top on a picnic table that kids will be licking ketchup off. 

Using exterior oil based paint in an infants bedroom and then dumping the excess down the toilet qualifies as lack of perspective too IMO.

So how do we fix lack of perspective? As we embark on a campaign to regulate. limit and weaponize free speech, it may be worthy of sober second thought lest it suffer the same fate as oil paint. Paint bros will tell you that "paint is paint (bros)." Well, he's mistaken... it's not.



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Falken said:

I have bought pressure treated spruce decking

It's dipped here, but not pressure treated. On ground level decks (due to moisture absorption from below), it doesn't last nearly as long as the good stuff used to. 

And unlike the pressure treated wood of years gone by, it needs to be stained fairly quickly after installation to avoid splintering. The good stuff was best left for a year before staining.

As an aside, the best semi transparent deck stain I've come across (and I've tried a bunch) is Sansin Dec, it's expensive though. 

Hows that for thread drift eh? Likely the first worthwhile thing we've discussed in 17 pages.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

It's dipped here, but not pressure treated. On ground level decks (due to moisture absorption from below), it doesn't last nearly as long as the good stuff used to. 

And unlike the pressure treated wood of years gone by, it needs to be stained fairly quickly

Surprised to hear that , I do however see that Lowes in Ontario is selling what they describe as being Pressure Treated Deck Boards.......     5/4-in x 6-in x 16-ft Brown Pressure Treated Wood Deck Board | Lowe's Canada (lowes.ca)

How Long Before You Can Paint New Pressure Treated Wood?



 FEB 9, 2022

Pressure-treated wood has to be dried out on site for how long?? Generally, pressure-treated wood takes one month to complete when prevailing conditions are right. It should take about two to three weeks when the weather is nice.

What Happens If You Paint Treated Wood Too Soon?

You’ll Warp Your Board By Painting Finished Wood Until the board is Dry, the non-painted side of it will warp more rapidly. A drying rate of one side affects warp at the other. If you wait too long, the wood will end up warped, painting will be ruined, and a big project will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micro-Sienna Deck boards and lumber (Brown Pressure Treat) need at least 1 season to properly dry and acclimatize before staining or painting.  Do it too early and you are in for increased maintenance.

If we were still allowed to use the good stain from years ago it wouldnt be an issue but it is banned in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, boestar said:

Do it too early and you are in for increased maintenance.


I don't want to push the thread drift too far so I'll close with an unscientific observation.

Paint chemistry is a bit like high finance to me… I don’t get it. By way of example, primer in the paint increases stand height, it’s not primer in the context of what I would consider primer. I simply accept it, I always use the same products, get good results and that’s good enough for my purposes even if it results in a bit more work. No primer in the paint for me, but I’m not knocking it either… Paint Bros swears by it.

The good news (for me anyway) is that since I know I don’t know, I deliberately seek out those with lots of experience. My opinion here is based on lunch time conversations with tradesmen (while assisting with projects) as opposed to my own more limited experience.

The notion you expressed seems to be pretty common and it’s readily verifiable online, I certainly wouldn’t dispute that. In practice though, a couple of very experienced painters I know disagree and their view seems to be supported (anecdotally) by my own experience and that of others I’m acquainted with.

Painting the following season was certainly advisable with old school pressure treated lumber but not (IMO) with the new stuff. Waiting a season lead to a lot of splintering on a large floating dock I’m familiar with, not waiting resulted in a perfect deck (about the same area as the dock) without a single splinter. When asked, the painter says…. “yup, told ya so.” BTW, both projects used "pressure treated" 5/4 decking from the same source and were used in the same geographic area. So, even if one was exposed to more moisture than the other and that factor is causal, the point here is that painting early had no ill effect on any of the projects I'm acquainted with.

For the record, they defined dry as not being wet when they recommend against waiting. LOL, that said, if you expect me to explain the chemistry or offer investment advice prepare yourself for disappointment.

Based on that, I never wait and not waiting has served me well... actually, very well. Funny thing though, during lunch pilots talk about airplanes, painters talk about paint and there never seems to be a shortage of opinion.

Turns out that some of the most faithful steeds I've driven (like the Seaking) are among the most vilified by others (over coffee and a sandwich)... so ya, I know it might be just me, 




Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

Accuse Your Enemy Of What You Are Doing, As You Are Doing It To Create Confusion

Karl Marx: “Accuse Your Enemy Of What You Are Doing, As You Are Doing It To Create Confusion”

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All they had to do was not be crazy... maybe there's something in the NY water.

Brooklyn shooting: Bloomberg, MSNBC, Democrats and more hyped less police on subways

NYC Mayor Eric Adams announced he will double the number of police on subways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the subway shooting, ABC and CBS didn't mention the fact the perp was black, NBC stated he was a dark skinned male.

They didn't mention he was black even after they posted a picture of him.

Initially they stated he was wearing a green safety vest, wrong, a 38 calibre handgun, wrong, and he was about 5'5" tall, wrong.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how about that folks, even the best and brightest(me :)) get fooled by the frauds on occasion. I have assumed all along that the kidnap plot against the left-wing governor of Michigan was just what the media was telling us. We saw the typical anti-Trump people posting about this and the usual right wing extremists, always linked to Trump and any conservative really. I should have known better. I haven't followed it in much detail. Just the headlines. Then I was reading this today:

"And last week, two of four men were acquitted in a conspiracy to kidnap Whitmer in 2020 in a case that has raised questions about whether the FBI engaged in entrapment."


Still don't know the details and maybe these were bad guys, but never, EVER trust the fake news mainstream media.

Ignore the frauds, although I have to say that there have been a lower amount of those types of posts on this forum in recent times. I am wondering why and if I was helpful in bringing more truth to this forum.

Comment away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...