just NYT trying to tamper with the Jury to get the result they want.

 

The thing is, however, that from their point of view, those are the only unbiased sources. Every other media outlet has an agenda, only theirs report the truth.

It's like this at all extreme ends of any spectrum. Moon-landing conspiracists, anti-vax / GMO / etc crusaders, Christians, Muslims, pyramid-honey truthers, Obama birthers, climate-change hysterics... Regardless of whether one might objectively classify them as far-left vs. far-right, or just plain far-out, they all know that their source of information is the only true and legitimate source.

 

so the media wants them to call for a mistrial if those weak charges stick.

 

^^ If the verdict doesn't go down the way the mob wants, any juror who is identified would very likely be at risk.

 

Joe, well put, but it doesn't explain how someone could believe really crazy ****, such as CO2 as a pollutant, or that the government can change the temperature of the planet..

Here's a really interesting read about the moon landings.

https://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/p...llo%20Hoax.pdf

I have never seen Obama's birth certificate, but I have seen a pic of a dot-matrix certificate that is supposedly his. They didn't have dot-matrix printers back then.

 

Good point, and definitely true. Unfortunately I don't know how to get people on far ends of the spectrum to see the light.

 

the gov't doesn't do it, your tax dollars create a cooling effect.

 

What if I'm correct and YOU need to see the light?

You're presupposing the middle of the spectrum is the light. I wholeheartedly disagree with this.







I believe you actually believe targeted violence against Asians is on the increase.
I believe you actually believe Trump "colluded with Russia."



Here's a riddle:
If you are still required to wear mask -- once fully vaccinated -- and can still be a carrier and spread the virus to others, then what's the point of a vaccine passport?

 

The current system purposely promotes deviants and low quality people. They have nothing else going for them. They know deep down the only reason they have money/status/power is their ideological conformity to the system. So they will be its most zealous enforcers.

 

I make my decisions based on evidence, peer reviewed scientific articles, etc. That is why I believe that I see the light. I haven't gone through this whole thread, but it doesn't take a lot of scrolling to notice a general lack of scientifically backed evidence in your posts.

Regarding asian violence, I never brought it up and have not done enough research to form an opinion on the subject. I think part of the problem is the knee jerk reaction so many people have when they see a particularly polarizing article/post and immediately start spewing the generally biased ideas they found all over the place with no regard to actual evidence.

I have done 0 reading on vaccine passports so I can't comment on that. But for mask usage (and anything else you post in this thread), you should check out google scholar. It will give you peer reviewed/scientific articles with evidence and facts that you can use to form an educated opinion.

 

Chad braineack vs. the virgin intellectual.

you certainly formed an opinion about me pretty quickly. It must be shocking to read some of the stuff I post and say here -- Zuck tries his hardest to shield you from it.

 

I am hoping that was all satire, but based on your other posts I am guessing it was not. 10/10 cringe, excellent work.

I formed an opinion on you based on the things that you were posting (and continue to post). I see now that I was wasting my time starting this conversation at all. If you ever have a change of heart, give https://scholar.google.com/ a click and do some reading on whatever topic interests you.

I don't know what you mean by "Zuck tries his hardest to shield you from it", if that's a reference to facebook then I am not following. I don't have a facebook or any other social media. I wish you the best and hope you find some evidence and facts in the near future.

 

And may you find Jesus.

 

 

I learn from the best:

 

Here's a good illustration of a technique which someone like Braineack "proves" that they are the only sane people in an insane world:

We're supposed to look at the headline, see a journalist saying that "fairness is overrated," and accept that as proof that "the media" has an agenda without actually thinking about what Lester Holt is actually saying.


Suppose that the flatness vs. roundness of the Earth has become a politically contentious issue. It's not that far-fetched.

A prominent democrat insists that the Earth is round. Or, more precisely, an oblate spheroid. She points out that science supports this conclusion, since astronomy as we know it only works for a round earth, photographic evidence exists showing the earth to be round, and some people (not her, of course) have actually been in space and watched a round earth revolve below them with their own eyes.

The New York Times prints this.

As Braineack has said before, anything asserted to be true by the Democratic party and repeated by the New York Times must, in his opinion, be false. It's a simple tautology. Whatever they say, the opposite must be true.

And, knowing that many people such as Braineack exist, the Republican party then makes it a part of their party philosophy that the earth must be flat. Because, of course, it looks flat from where they are standing, and scientists and the media are spinning this lie because a round earth plays nicely into atmospheric models which support the idea of man-made climate change. So it's obviously a conspiracy.


Do the people claiming that the earth is flat deserve "equal weight and merit" in the press as those steadfastly insisting that the earth is round?

 

Personally, I'm just blown away at how fast Brain went from the most anti-police personality on the internet to boot polisher. Seemed to happen right about when BLM started becoming a commonly used term.

I mean, the police brutality thread was maintained at the top of the page for years solely from Brain's posts, similar to how the politics thread is now. It's been fun to watch the change.

 

I think the challenge is allowing a group to decide that in this previous argument (earth is round) who was arguing for what.

As in... is MSM arguing the earth is flat or are the Trumpians arguing the earth is flat? Should there be a group at all that decides to say who's arguing like what? But beyond all that, I'd also say its disingenuous to use that as the example. A better example would be the "fine people on both sides" story.

 

I wanted real police reform, not through crime or "defunding"

When blm and antifa and the left started thier pro-crime movement it took the fun out of what i was doing.
They only want to commit crimes and therefore dislike police, i want police to stop committing crimes themselves; big difference.

I'm still not pro-cop, nor pro-crime.


Either way, the george floyd trial is a ******* joke. Plus trump got elected and i focused more on dank memes as no one seemed to care about police reform

 

The most misquoted quote in the media/left!