X
xavier7995
Fuckin awesome
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
:::::::INFOWARS News Thread:::::::
- Thread starter pipeline
- Start date
- Status
I have a Smith and Wesson 500 (true 50 Mag) for up close and personal. Most powerful production hand gun in the world. It throws an 18" fireball when you shoot it, and kicks like a mule. It hurts to shoot. Rounds are expensive, but I have plenty in the safe
Lots of stainless guns. I love them.
Ive shot right through a tree with the 500, I wear padded gloves to shoot that one.
By the way, nice set up over there. I like those reserves
Lyfespan
Active member
one more on the pile, and not looking good for democrats
https://www.foxnews.com/us/democratic-megadonor-ed-buck-now-facing-allegations-of-human-trafficking-revenge-porn
https://www.foxnews.com/us/democratic-megadonor-ed-buck-now-facing-allegations-of-human-trafficking-revenge-porn
I love the radio host Tom Pappert at Big League Politics. He's a younger guy. He hosts on Infowars a couple times a month.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-democrat-donor-ed-buck-accused-of-human-trafficking/
BREAKING: Democrat Donor Ed Buck Accused of Human Trafficking
Published
8 hours ago on
Jul 9, 2019
By
Patrick Howley
Ed Buck, a donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, is now formally accused of human trafficking by the mother of a dead black man.
CBS News reports: “Prominent political activist Ed Buck is facing new legal troubles as the mother of a man who died in his home has filed an amended civil suit accusing Buck of human trafficking and engaging in revenge porn, CBS Los Angeles reports…
“Information we received from other victims of Ed Buck that Ed Buck loves to take pictures of these young men, loves to take videos of them in their inebriated state,” Cannick said.
The amended complaint alleges that Buck “regularly solicits sex from black men in exchange for temporary housing and/or monetary compensation.”
Trending: REPORT: Acosta Was Told Epstein ‘Belonged To Intelligence’ So ‘Leave It Alone’
“Gemmel Moore at the time was 26 years old and Ed Buck flew him here from Texas,” Cannick said. “And within 24 hours, he died of a crystal meth overdose.”
CBS News passage ends
Big League Politics reported: “Buck has donated to former California governor Jerry Brown, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, also a Democrat.”
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-democrat-donor-ed-buck-accused-of-human-trafficking/
BREAKING: Democrat Donor Ed Buck Accused of Human Trafficking
Published
8 hours ago on
Jul 9, 2019
By
Patrick Howley
Ed Buck, a donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, is now formally accused of human trafficking by the mother of a dead black man.
CBS News reports: “Prominent political activist Ed Buck is facing new legal troubles as the mother of a man who died in his home has filed an amended civil suit accusing Buck of human trafficking and engaging in revenge porn, CBS Los Angeles reports…
“Information we received from other victims of Ed Buck that Ed Buck loves to take pictures of these young men, loves to take videos of them in their inebriated state,” Cannick said.
The amended complaint alleges that Buck “regularly solicits sex from black men in exchange for temporary housing and/or monetary compensation.”
Trending: REPORT: Acosta Was Told Epstein ‘Belonged To Intelligence’ So ‘Leave It Alone’
“Gemmel Moore at the time was 26 years old and Ed Buck flew him here from Texas,” Cannick said. “And within 24 hours, he died of a crystal meth overdose.”
CBS News passage ends
Big League Politics reported: “Buck has donated to former California governor Jerry Brown, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, also a Democrat.”
F
Frylock
Vote [1] Bernard Sanders 
This guy is a total scumbag and needs to go down too.
Why is it that Infowars never writes these kinds of articles on Conservatives, only Dems?
Why is it that Infowars never writes these kinds of articles on Conservatives, only Dems?
Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were the only two guests at a party with 28 women flown in for the ‘entertainment’: NYT report
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/tr...en-flown-in-for-the-entertainment-nyt-report/
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/tr...en-flown-in-for-the-entertainment-nyt-report/
CaptainDankness
Well-known member
They used to before Donald Trump made Alex Jones filthy rich. I'm sure it's good for ratings too gives him a larger audience.
For revolvers I like my 44mag ruger
But my 50cal dessert eagle is my baby...extremely well balanced with a rotating bolt action to keep recoil to a minimum...I can squeeze off an entire clip while maintaining shots on target...will destroy target... and hearing
https://www.infowars.com/facebook-i...acceptable-to-issue-death-threats-against-me/
Facebook Issues New Policy Saying It’s Acceptable to Post Death Threats Against Me
Yes, really
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - July 9, 2019 Comments
Facebook has issued a new policy update saying it’s acceptable to post death threats and incite violence against me, despite this being a crime in the United Kingdom.
No, I’m not joking.
A Community Standards update published by Facebook states (emphasis mine); “Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)….”
Back in May, Facebook and Instagram banned me under the justification that I was a “dangerous individual”. They provided no evidence whatsoever that I had behaved in a “dangerous” manner or violated any of their policies.
Facebook has designated me a “dangerous individual” and now says it’s acceptable for its users to issue death threats against me.
This is a crime in the United Kingdom under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act which states, “Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys….a threat….is guilty of an offence.”
The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says its fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal.
They are painting a target on my back.
Innumerable individuals have already sent death threats to me via Facebook. Just a small sample appear below.
Two months ago, via my lawyers, I filed a Subject Access Request demanding Facebook turn over all information relating to me. Facebook has yet to respond to this request, despite it being a legal requirement to respond within 30 days.
If and when Facebook ever responds to this legal demand, the next step will be to begin litigation proceedings.
The fact that Facebook has literally said it’s OK to incite violence against me is going to be a very interesting potential addition to those proceedings.
———————————————————————————————————————
https://www.infowars.com/next-level...conservatives-in-new-terms-of-service-update/
Next Level: Facebook Greenlights Violence Against Conservatives in New Terms of Service Update
Surpassing Orwell’s nightmare vision, Facebook says people labeled “dangerous” can be targeted for death
The Alex Jones Show - July 10, 2019 Comments
Image Credits: NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty.
This is not a joke: Facebook updated its terms of service to state that calls for “high-severity violence” is perfectly acceptable if the target is what Facebook declares to be a “dangerous individual.”
A Community Standards update published by Facebook states:
“Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)….”
Facebook Issues New Policy Saying It’s Acceptable to Post Death Threats Against Me
Yes, really
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - July 9, 2019 Comments
Facebook has issued a new policy update saying it’s acceptable to post death threats and incite violence against me, despite this being a crime in the United Kingdom.
No, I’m not joking.
A Community Standards update published by Facebook states (emphasis mine); “Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)….”
Back in May, Facebook and Instagram banned me under the justification that I was a “dangerous individual”. They provided no evidence whatsoever that I had behaved in a “dangerous” manner or violated any of their policies.
Facebook has designated me a “dangerous individual” and now says it’s acceptable for its users to issue death threats against me.
This is a crime in the United Kingdom under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act which states, “Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys….a threat….is guilty of an offence.”
The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says its fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal.
They are painting a target on my back.
Innumerable individuals have already sent death threats to me via Facebook. Just a small sample appear below.
Two months ago, via my lawyers, I filed a Subject Access Request demanding Facebook turn over all information relating to me. Facebook has yet to respond to this request, despite it being a legal requirement to respond within 30 days.
If and when Facebook ever responds to this legal demand, the next step will be to begin litigation proceedings.
The fact that Facebook has literally said it’s OK to incite violence against me is going to be a very interesting potential addition to those proceedings.
———————————————————————————————————————
https://www.infowars.com/next-level...conservatives-in-new-terms-of-service-update/
Next Level: Facebook Greenlights Violence Against Conservatives in New Terms of Service Update
Surpassing Orwell’s nightmare vision, Facebook says people labeled “dangerous” can be targeted for death
The Alex Jones Show - July 10, 2019 Comments
Image Credits: NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty.This is not a joke: Facebook updated its terms of service to state that calls for “high-severity violence” is perfectly acceptable if the target is what Facebook declares to be a “dangerous individual.”
A Community Standards update published by Facebook states:
“Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)….”
http://counterthink.com/2019-05-22-...will-target-conservatives-and-christians.html
Left-wing Death Squads will target conservatives and Christians
Posted on 5/22/2019 / Comments
Left-wing Death Squads will target conservatives and Christians
Posted on 5/22/2019 / Comments
Revealed: The Explosive Secret Recording That Shows How Russia Tried To Funnel Millions To The “European Trump”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-secret-recording
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-secret-recording
https://www.infowars.com/media-downplaying-crucial-autism-data/
Media Downplaying Crucial Autism Data
Autism surge coincided with overuse of childhood vaccines
Children's Health Defense - July 10, 2019 Comments
Image Credits: Dr. Partha Sarathi Sahana, Flickr.
In the 1950s, when autism was not yet a household word, the day’s leading psychiatrists and psychologists propagated the “refrigerator-mother hypothesis.”
According to this theory, autism—rare at the time—was the result of emotionally distant mothering. As the condition now known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) began attaining epidemic proportions (with about 1 in 36 children diagnosed with ASD as of 2016 versus perhaps 1 in 10,000 in the early 1980s), researchers eventually found the refrigerator-mom paradigm to be wanting and turned their attention to other theories—but still often remained focused on maternal risk factors.
One of the narratives to gain recent prominence is that autism begins in the womb. Although the womb hypothesis is grounded in the neurodevelopmental reality that what happens during pregnancy can have “significant consequences for brain and behavior throughout the remainder of the lifespan,” its media proponents seem to be using it more as a smokescreen.
How does the smokescreen work? First, with the womb front and center, it becomes possible to downplay the fact that the preponderance of autism cases are regressive—that is to say, most often arising in children who were previously developing completely normally. The prenatal spotlight also makes it easier to deflect attention away from the fact that autism’s explosion on the scene coincided with key trends such as the escalating overuse of childhood vaccines containing toxins like aluminum and glyphosate—while helpfully making it difficult to get overly specific about environmental exposures at all. As one government researcher has stated, “y the time children are diagnosed [with autism] at age 3 or 4, it’s hard to go back and know what the moms were exposed to.”
Researchers have not hesitated to suggest that virtually anything and everything can alter the developing brain—“social and environmental toxins, diet, drugs of abuse”—and especially, individual rather than corporate behavior. In this slippery context, is it any wonder that the media keep latching onto moms as convenient scapegoats?
Not Off the Hook
Ironically, hypothesizing that autism’s origins are strictly prenatal does very little to let vaccines off the hook. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that all pregnant women get the influenza and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis) vaccines, even though neither has ever been tested or licensed specifically for use during pregnancy.
Paul Patterson, a researcher who studied something called maternal immune activation (MIA), long ago established that there is a relationship between prenatal infectious or environmental exposures and ASD-like neurodevelopmental deficits in the offspring. When the CDC stepped up its efforts to vaccinate pregnant women in the mid-2000s, Patterson warned that it would be impossible to “predict how often a prenatal immune response might lead to fetal brain damage” and suggested that “vaccinating an entire population of pregnant women could affect thousands of children.”
In 2014, pharmaceutical industry authors alluded to the potential for a pregnant woman’s response to vaccination to trigger detrimental consequences in babies, admitting that “long-term follow-up data on the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders in the offspring of mothers vaccinated during pregnancy” were “scant.”
Work by Harvard researchers indicates that the risks of undue immune stimulation are not confined to the prenatal period. These researchers hypothesize that exposure in early life to infection or environmental toxins prompts dysfunction of important, long-lived brain-immune cells called microglia and thereby contributes to the development of neurodegenerative disorders later in life. Proposing a sort of one-two punch, they suggest that a “first hit” that “likely begins perinatally” creates an “underlying vulnerability,” and a “second hit” later “unmasks the full pathology” and “kicks the microglia into overdrive.” They also propose that someone who has not received the “first hit” may not react with the same kind of “exaggerated” inflammatory response later on. Drawing out the implications of this work, a researcher has argued that it “certainly should make us rethink our vaccine policy, especially when it comes to vaccinating pregnant women and newborn babies.”
Dr. Partha Sarathi Sahana, FlickrBroadening the Discussion
“Autism science [has] pursued the wrong branches at almost every turn.” This is the assertion of authors Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill in their book, The Age of Autism. The two authors note that although there was a clearly apparent pattern of occupational chemical exposures in the families of the earliest autism cases, researchers of the time preferred to accuse mothers of harming their children through inadequate parenting. Later generations of researchers again evaded consideration of environmental factors by accusing mothers of passing on faulty genes, even though genes “have been shown to account for only a fraction of ASD diagnoses.”
At present, mainstream science allows consideration of some environmental determinants of autism—but only some. Thus, it has become acceptable to point the finger at air pollution, pregnancy medications and some chemicals. However, it is also still fashionable to blame mothers for their “toxic wombs.” It is time to put a halt to both victim blaming and evasiveness and recognize that an autism/ASD diagnosis is a cover term for damage caused by environmental toxins that need to be explicitly studied, named and eliminated.
The viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Infowars.
Media Downplaying Crucial Autism Data
Autism surge coincided with overuse of childhood vaccines
Children's Health Defense - July 10, 2019 Comments
Image Credits: Dr. Partha Sarathi Sahana, Flickr.In the 1950s, when autism was not yet a household word, the day’s leading psychiatrists and psychologists propagated the “refrigerator-mother hypothesis.”
According to this theory, autism—rare at the time—was the result of emotionally distant mothering. As the condition now known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) began attaining epidemic proportions (with about 1 in 36 children diagnosed with ASD as of 2016 versus perhaps 1 in 10,000 in the early 1980s), researchers eventually found the refrigerator-mom paradigm to be wanting and turned their attention to other theories—but still often remained focused on maternal risk factors.
One of the narratives to gain recent prominence is that autism begins in the womb. Although the womb hypothesis is grounded in the neurodevelopmental reality that what happens during pregnancy can have “significant consequences for brain and behavior throughout the remainder of the lifespan,” its media proponents seem to be using it more as a smokescreen.
How does the smokescreen work? First, with the womb front and center, it becomes possible to downplay the fact that the preponderance of autism cases are regressive—that is to say, most often arising in children who were previously developing completely normally. The prenatal spotlight also makes it easier to deflect attention away from the fact that autism’s explosion on the scene coincided with key trends such as the escalating overuse of childhood vaccines containing toxins like aluminum and glyphosate—while helpfully making it difficult to get overly specific about environmental exposures at all. As one government researcher has stated, “y the time children are diagnosed [with autism] at age 3 or 4, it’s hard to go back and know what the moms were exposed to.”
Researchers have not hesitated to suggest that virtually anything and everything can alter the developing brain—“social and environmental toxins, diet, drugs of abuse”—and especially, individual rather than corporate behavior. In this slippery context, is it any wonder that the media keep latching onto moms as convenient scapegoats?
Not Off the Hook
Ironically, hypothesizing that autism’s origins are strictly prenatal does very little to let vaccines off the hook. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that all pregnant women get the influenza and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis) vaccines, even though neither has ever been tested or licensed specifically for use during pregnancy.
Paul Patterson, a researcher who studied something called maternal immune activation (MIA), long ago established that there is a relationship between prenatal infectious or environmental exposures and ASD-like neurodevelopmental deficits in the offspring. When the CDC stepped up its efforts to vaccinate pregnant women in the mid-2000s, Patterson warned that it would be impossible to “predict how often a prenatal immune response might lead to fetal brain damage” and suggested that “vaccinating an entire population of pregnant women could affect thousands of children.”
In 2014, pharmaceutical industry authors alluded to the potential for a pregnant woman’s response to vaccination to trigger detrimental consequences in babies, admitting that “long-term follow-up data on the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders in the offspring of mothers vaccinated during pregnancy” were “scant.”
Work by Harvard researchers indicates that the risks of undue immune stimulation are not confined to the prenatal period. These researchers hypothesize that exposure in early life to infection or environmental toxins prompts dysfunction of important, long-lived brain-immune cells called microglia and thereby contributes to the development of neurodegenerative disorders later in life. Proposing a sort of one-two punch, they suggest that a “first hit” that “likely begins perinatally” creates an “underlying vulnerability,” and a “second hit” later “unmasks the full pathology” and “kicks the microglia into overdrive.” They also propose that someone who has not received the “first hit” may not react with the same kind of “exaggerated” inflammatory response later on. Drawing out the implications of this work, a researcher has argued that it “certainly should make us rethink our vaccine policy, especially when it comes to vaccinating pregnant women and newborn babies.”
Dr. Partha Sarathi Sahana, FlickrBroadening the Discussion
“Autism science [has] pursued the wrong branches at almost every turn.” This is the assertion of authors Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill in their book, The Age of Autism. The two authors note that although there was a clearly apparent pattern of occupational chemical exposures in the families of the earliest autism cases, researchers of the time preferred to accuse mothers of harming their children through inadequate parenting. Later generations of researchers again evaded consideration of environmental factors by accusing mothers of passing on faulty genes, even though genes “have been shown to account for only a fraction of ASD diagnoses.”
At present, mainstream science allows consideration of some environmental determinants of autism—but only some. Thus, it has become acceptable to point the finger at air pollution, pregnancy medications and some chemicals. However, it is also still fashionable to blame mothers for their “toxic wombs.” It is time to put a halt to both victim blaming and evasiveness and recognize that an autism/ASD diagnosis is a cover term for damage caused by environmental toxins that need to be explicitly studied, named and eliminated.
The viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Infowars.
Last edited:
White Beard
Active member
Nah, that’s time-honored “conservative” style...and Facebook fucked up with this.
At the same time, was Marat a clear and present danger to life and liberty in Paris? Was Socrates a clear and present danger to Athens and its culture?
Using free speech to destroy free speech is actually one of the oldest political tactics known, and we haven’t learned to solve or prevent it since.
We have however learned a lot of new ways to use it against each other
At the same time, was Marat a clear and present danger to life and liberty in Paris? Was Socrates a clear and present danger to Athens and its culture?
Using free speech to destroy free speech is actually one of the oldest political tactics known, and we haven’t learned to solve or prevent it since.
We have however learned a lot of new ways to use it against each other
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
Were so close to passing concealed carry in my state, I can't wait.
- Status
