:::::::INFOWARS News Thread:::::::

[h.h.]

No harm in promoting propaganda.

 

[beta]

Well - not everyone takes infowars seriously including yourself - and anything 'made-up' can easily be disproved - with a bit of research - so I don't see the harm in it - unless people automatically take anything broadcast on infowars as being the truth -


Its the same with the bible or the qu'ran - once some research is done -

I agree for sure, I'm just saying that 'getting people talking' doesn't mean something has value.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

There is good in being able to discuss what is propaganda and what is not - right here - If an infowars story/article lacks truth - then we can debate that - So we are not promoting propaganda - more like disecting it .

No harm in promoting propaganda.

 

[DrLongbottom]

the problem about propaganda is that those with lower intelligence levels than those able to discuss this is , that it is very very effective.
The average iq in the United States is around 100.
at that level, peoples minds very malleable.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

OK, are you implying that we shouldn't be discussing what is propaganda and what is not - because members are too unintelligent to be able to discern the difference? -


Propaganda is aimed at the average man/woman - since they make up the bulk of any populace - and even the average person can grasp what might be propaganda or not - whether they are bothered by it or not is another question - apathy runs rife etc.

the problem about propaganda is that those with lower intelligence levels than those able to discuss this is , that it is very very effective.
The average iq in the United States is around 100.
at that level, peoples minds very malleable.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I'm with Gypsy. Most folks know when the material at hand is questionable.

I like Infowars being as outlandish as they are so many can tell it's propaganda.

 

[White Beard]

Well - not everyone takes infowars seriously including yourself - and anything 'made-up' can easily be disproved - with a bit of research - so I don't see the harm in it - unless people automatically take anything broadcast on infowars as being the truth -

...which is exactly why we have this thread: the automatic adoption of infowars’ every belch as true and authentic - and the refusal to discuss any thereof...in those eyes, we are political sinners who can’t be listened to or credited at all, for fear of losing the One Light that justifies them. It is absolutist, unmistakeable so.

 

[armedoldhippy]

No harm in promoting propaganda.

sorry, but...yes, there is.

 

[armedoldhippy]

the problem about propaganda is that those with lower intelligence levels than those able to discuss this is , that it is very very effective.
The average iq in the United States is around 100.
at that level, peoples minds very malleable.

if the average is about 100, that would make roughly half of voters BELOW that, right? (yeah, i know. a quarter of them COULD be at about 150 & a quarter of them be 50, but i doubt it...)

 

[White Beard]

Last I heard, the US average was 80 (not a political reference)

 

[Frylock]

sorry, but...yes, there is.

I think he was being sarcastic....

 

[armedoldhippy]

Last I heard, the US average was 80 (not a political reference)

that would explain all of the clown car drivers i've been seeing lately.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Some people look at infowars with as much seriousness as they would look at the onion - or any other joke site - but still, you never know what questions you might come up with after reading some of their articles - they do often pose questions and make reports on stuff other news agencies do not - whether true or fabricated - it still holds the interest - to at least investigate and try to find out if any of what some might consider spurious claims hold any truth at all - These days, with so many news agencies gone political, so having their own agenda's - it can take a while to sort the chaff from the wheat - it takes a lot of reading, checking and comparing news reports - to be able to come to any sort of reasonable and factual opinion on the subject matter - and that takes time.

 

[White Beard]

Britain has a history of politically loyal journalism unlike what we’ve had in the US. We’re not used to it, and that’s one of the things sadly driving us nuts

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

Its become plain to me that we are being, and have been socially engineered by the media and educational institutions to lean in a certain political way - whatever suits the ruling elites - for a very long time - so it is imperative that we at least try to see thru this fog of favour to one side or another of the political divide - a division that is there to suit the purposes of that same ruling cabal - to obfuscate and confuse our vision of how we are ruled over and by whom - and for what reasons -


The press here in the UK can be very partisan - as it is in the USA - there again you have to conscientiously sift thru the articles, with that in mind -

Britain has a history of politically loyal journalism unlike what we’ve had in the US. We’re not used to it, and that’s one of the things sadly driving us nuts

 

[h.h.]

Newscasters have always been human with their own opinions, many based on what they see.

Infowars and the Onion are just bullshit.
If you read bullshit, you regurgitate bullshit.
There is o defense for outright lying.

 

[beta]

Schiff: "Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?

Mueller: "When you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case, absolutely."

Schiff: "Trump campaign officials built their strategy - their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?"

Mueller: "Uhm, generally that is true."

Schiff: "And then they lied to cover it up?"

Mueller: "Generally that is true"

 

[beta]

NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.

 

[beta]

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

“You believe that he committed–you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

 

[packerfan79]

Apparently no one watched the second hearing .