As Corbett said, these (usually B&M Gates Foundation funded) 'fact checkers' tend to rely heavily on straw-man arguments. That is to say, take something ridiculous that someone (often one of their own operatives most likely) said and 'debunk' that. They know damn well that 99% of people are just going to look at the color code thingy at the top.
I don't remember ever seeing an open comments section on any of the 'fact checks'. Any source of information without an open comments section is very suspect to me, and I don't use them very much for actual information about critical or sensitive subjects.
One of the few times I actually looked to find information on a 'fact check' site was when someone who claimed to be the family doctor of Bill Gates' family said that the kids were sharp, healthy, and unvaccinated. Did the 'fact checkers' even bother to get a statement from Gates? Of course not. They 'debunked' the story by pointing out that the doctor was not acting ethically by exposing private medical information. Lol! What a joke.
So you rarely look at fact checking sites because Corbett told you to just believe him instead. Gotcha. Nope: Just the opposite. Two of the people I pay the most attention to (and sometime fund) implore people NOT to just trust what they say and do their own research. To back it up, both are also VERY fastidious about providing links to source material for everything they talk about. Check out how it should be done: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-381-who-will-fact-check-the-fact-checkers/ https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/who-says-children-should-not-be-vaccinated-nanobots-az-vax-has-protein-breakdown-blood-clots/Note the organized sequential links to the source material, then at the bottom of the page a comments section so people can add to or challenge the information provided. You can fact check the fact checkers yourself. They cite their sources. (try clicking on the words that look a little different or have a little squiggly line underneath) |
|
|
|
One of the tools I use to ascertain the weight of a story is how fast the 'fact checkers' respond. When they are on a story within a day, it indicates that there is a 'there there', and it is an important thing.
classic... Yup. It's a fall-out from 'classic' old-school pre-scientism concepts such as observation, research, and critical thinking. Your average 'global citizen' would never think to ask about how the 'fact checkers' came into existence and who funds their pay-checks, much less what that means for their work product. To most people, that they calling themselves 'fact checkers' makes it obvious that they are credible in checking facts. As further proof, Google and Facebook use them! https://www.corbettreport.com/who-will-fact-check-the-fact-checkers/Someones done a very good job of keeping you from realizing that all the quotes and information these fact checkers publish include detailed sources. (try clicking on the words that look a little different or have a little squiggly line underneath) As Corbett said, these (usually B&M Gates Foundation funded) 'fact checkers' tend to rely heavily on straw-man arguments. That is to say, take something ridiculous that someone (often one of their own operatives most likely) said and 'debunk' that. They know damn well that 99% of people are just going to look at the color code thingy at the top. I don't remember ever seeing an open comments section on any of the 'fact checks'. Any source of information without an open comments section is very suspect to me, and I don't use them very much for actual information about critical or sensitive subjects. One of the few times I actually looked to find information on a 'fact check' site was when someone who claimed to be the family doctor of Bill Gates' family said that the kids were sharp, healthy, and unvaccinated. Did the 'fact checkers' even bother to get a statement from Gates? Of course not. They 'debunked' the story by pointing out that the doctor was not acting ethically by exposing private medical information. Lol! What a joke. So you rarely look at fact checking sites because Corbett told you to just believe him instead. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
One of the tools I use to ascertain the weight of a story is how fast the 'fact checkers' respond. When they are on a story within a day, it indicates that there is a 'there there', and it is an important thing.
classic... Yup. It's a fall-out from 'classic' old-school pre-scientism concepts such as observation, research, and critical thinking. Your average 'global citizen' would never think to ask about how the 'fact checkers' came into existence and who funds their pay-checks, much less what that means for their work product. To most people, that they calling themselves 'fact checkers' makes it obvious that they are credible in checking facts. As further proof, Google and Facebook use them! https://www.corbettreport.com/who-will-fact-check-the-fact-checkers/Someones done a very good job of keeping you from realizing that all the quotes and information these fact checkers publish include detailed sources. (try clicking on the words that look a little different or have a little squiggly line underneath) |
|
|
|
With almost 3 billion vaccinated and counting I have a feeling we're in for a lot of these "Vaccinated person died!!!11!111" threads, all chock full of nonsense.
One of the tools I use to ascertain the weight of a story is how fast the 'fact checkers' respond. When they are on a story within a day, it indicates that there is a 'there there', and it is an important thing.
classic... |
|
|
|
 Losers of the world, eh? Speak for yourself moron. What a lovely Father's Day message. I'm surprised he didn't spell it "loosers" or mention his stolen election obsession. Jeeezus, what a jackass ....just pathetic. Every day he's not president is a gift
He seems mad. |
|
|
|
Go to the site to watch the video.
Go to this site: wh.gov |
|
|
|
Reminder: Biden will never be President. Why not? The military has the election fraud knowledge, and so do the militias, and other organizations who have the guns. If Trump isn't given his second term, the election will have to be done over, because Biden will never be accepted because of the fraud.
 |
|
|
|
Ignore stereotypes against Tesla and Elon Musk, buy a car to travel and go to far places, choose a gasoline-powered car because they are easier to refuel. If you have to find a place to recharge and wait for the battery to be fully charged, you will lose your precious time. Not to mention the experience of a gasoline-powered car can be better.
Tesla has thought of that already and has announced (sorry I've lost the link) that they will start their own recharging stations attached to "Dinner" style restaurants / service stations - essentially Tesla gets you to buy the car, then, while you are "captive" for ~ 30 - 60 minutes, they get a trickle of money from you - might not be much day-to-day, but if they know they can rake in (ball park number out of my head) $100 per month from 50,000 people, then that starts equating to some big bucks. Wait 30-60 minutes to charge the battery, but the internal combustion engine refuels no more than 4 minutes. If you go to remote places, you can bring a fuel tank. Wouldn't that be more convenient? Tesla electric cars are trying to reach everywhere, but they can hardly reach remote places. I don't think Tesla is targeting people that plan on taking their vehicle to areas that are hundreds of miles away from gas stations or electricity. I can't even think of an area that you would need to fill up an extra gas tank and throw it in your car because your gas tank doesn't hold enough. And I believe with a super charger, you can get almost 200 miles worth of charge in 15 minutes. And it will keep going down with each new model. |
|
|
|
This was actually the worst risk free bet so far because it had the lowest odds. Every weekend they have this promo and often it's at around even odds.
Sorry you feel that way. On the contrary, that risk free bet from stake made my weekend. I'd admit that the odds were not that great but it was a win win situation, I took it (and I'm glad I did). Coming from someone who has played on several traditional and sportsbooks, I haven't gotten a risk free bet before. I think the only downside was that the odds were not as high as we all expected and the maximum refund amount was fixed at $50. Either way, it's still a good bet for me. I would take a similar bet like this if stake offers it in the near future. Indeed. Am surprised Maasdamer would say it's the worst, when I really couldn't find anything better. Odds alone were the best, as I mentioned, 15%++ more than any other bookie. Don't know about you, but I like winning more. Then the risk-free bit where worst case scenario, you get your coins back if it doesn't work out. Not a freebet back, but your wager back. That's as it good as it gets. So this is offered every weekend? Definitely need to check Stake more often;) Why wouldnt it be the worst, explain it to me. odds were lets say 1,35, max refund 50$. So you can win less than 20$ risk free. On any other weekends the risk free odds are above 2.0 and same max refund, so you can win 50$ risk free. This promo is running for weeks at stake now. So it is BY FAR, the worst free bet in the promo stake has had so far. Maybe the easiest to win yes, but considering possible money won its the worst. You're right, there was less value in this one than any previous. If you are really that concerned about value though, you should try not acting like such an ungrateful prick all the time. You'd be amazed at what kind of opportunities there are out there for someone that acts like a decent human every once in a while. |
|
|
|
Right on page 1 of the Worldbank covid-19 strategic preparedness project document. The gread covid war was intended to last until 31-3-2025 to bad the lost and it ended early.
What?  |
|
|
|
Are the games adjusted for the 50% discount? Seems like they must be adjusted to not pay out the same as if you paid the full price, right? |
|
|
|
|
That was fun, thanks sb.io and jeremy!
|
|
|
|
true dat, but realize it is ALL controlled opposition. Don't trust trannies bro. EVER. they lie. DO NOT TRUST TRANNIES EVER
What do you mean, "they lie?" Trannies all over the place know what they are and admit it. Just like you. It's in your handle. A tranny is basically by definition a 'liar'. Not that I have anything against them any more than any other mentally (and in old-normal cases, endocrainalogicalogicaly) disturbed person or anything. I mean, it's the slightly abnormal people that makes the world kind of interesting. Basically the definition of ignorance right here 👆 |
|
|
|
Problem is today, most "revolutionists" don't have the same passion. They rally behind something no one cares about.
I mean, we're kinda going through one of the largest movements in modern history. It's ok to disagree with it, but think about how silly it is to say that nobody cares about the thing that ~20 million Americans (and millions more globally) are protesting... Not trying to get in another BLM argument with you, our views are irrelevant to my point. People do care about it. but this tea event. was not the sole trigger/response to cause the civil war/revolution. it was just the media story to hide the true causes
You keep implying that I said it was. This is the second or third time. Knock it off please. I didn't say that and I've never heard anyone make that claim. And the Civil War was almost 100 years later. but hey if you think throwing 3 ships load of tea boxes into the sea was the only and sole cause of a civil war. maybe your missing a few pieces of critical info in the middle I don't. Of course I don't. Please don't do that, lets have an honest conversation. |
|
|
|
you were talking about the reaction to the boston tea party(342 boxes of tea thrown in the sea)
britain did send more tea and stil demanded more taxes. which even you noted as the intolerant acts
thats where your first story ended
There were 3 or 4 (depending on if count the Quebec Act) Intolerable Acts (as in the Americans wouldn't tolerate them) that were a direct response to the Boston Tea Party. The first one completely shut down Boston Harbor and ordered British troops to patrol the water and surrounding land to make sure no Colonists were allowed to import or export any of their goods overseas and ordered the colonists to pay for the Tea they threw in the harbor and compensate the tea company (owned by England) for all lost revenue. The second one revoked the charter that allowed Massachusetts to somewhat govern itself. They were no longer allowed to elect any local officials, they would all be appointed by the King instead. They weren't even allowed to hold any sort of regular town meeting anymore. The third allowed British Officers to stand trial in England rather than America. Basically a get out of jail free card for British troops and appointed officials to do whatever they wanted without having to worry about being judged in America. thats where your first story ended
This isn't my story, it's literally the history of America. England passed these acts hoping to stop any future protests. As you know, that plan backfired. The Intolerable Acts are what ultimately unified the 13 Colonies and persuaded enough Colonists to turn on Britain and by Fall 1774 (the Tea Party was in December) each Colony sent delegates to Philly for the first Continental Congress where they agreed to stand together against England. If England wouldn't repeal all coercive acts, then all 13 colonies would boycott all English goods in protest. I think this is where the petition you mentioned was drawn up, they called it the Continental Association. King George basically said 'oh hell no' and, because of the second intolerable act (see above), Massachusetts was the place he decided to hold his ground (the other colonies still had some degree of independence, but he had declared MA basically part of England.) In Spring of 1775 that's where the first shots were fired and the war began. Without the support of the other 12 colonies, there's little doubt Massachusetts would've had a chance, they probably wouldn't have bothered to fight and just given in. But because the colonies were united and willing to fight for the same cause and each other, that's not what happened. Unifying many voices as one is what makes protests effective. They make others aware of an issue they may not have known about, and if enough people agree - no government has any choice but to listen. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a huge protest, but it was a catalyst for the Revolutionary War, which was in itself - just one big protest. A revolution that did not fail at realizing it's desired outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
