So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha.

What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof".

It's highly debatable if his "knowledge" is a benefit. I'm sure some of it is, but when three different people have a discussion with him about how something as basic as mining works and try multiple avenues of showing him how what he thinks is wrong, even dumbing it down to an example of a foot race, and yet he still doesn't get it, one has to wonder how much value he adds to the section he's alleged to have been banned from. I don't know what's recently happened but if it's anything like that previous one, then he adds zero value as all he does is derail people from having a real discussion. There are plenty of other sections here for that sort of thing.

WTF... So you're saying Zlochevsky bribed Biden and hired Bidens son as apart of it? Wow. Ok then. So please do tell/show me where there is anything that shows that's the case here. I'd love to see how all the US policy and everything was just an elaborate smoke screen so Biden could carry out the dirty work from the "bribe". That must have been some massive bribe for everyone to go along with that.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe? Quoting "the hill" where they interview the guy who was fired and will have an axe to grind is your proof? You haven't presented any proof anywhere. I mean seriously. At least I could dig up again a document that outlines a bunch of allegations based on some "interview" or other. Course, it's over the top and smells of being a fake given things like it's in English yet says it was translated from Ukrainian to Russian. But still.

Geez. Now you're making yourself out to be some sort of delusional person that thinks he's the "savior" with your comment about me not being savable.

Why would you be afraid of being criticized if you have facts and proof you can show to backup your claims.

UK investigating Zlochevsky and gets Ukraine to do so as well.
US gets involved and pressures Ukraine to do more for the UK.
Ukraine does nothing and Zlochevsky gets the money and whisks it away.
Biden goes to Ukraine and tells them to deal with corruption.
US ambassador slams them for not doing enough to deal with corruption and in particular, Shokin.
Embassy suggests to WH that they tie the money to anti-corruption
Biden threatens to withhold funds if Shokin isn't fired.
IMF threatens to withhold funds if Shokin isn't fired.
Shokin is fired and replaced.

So all these groups wanting the guy fired. Where exactly is a "bribe" by Biden. Point me to the proof that it was a blatant bribe so they wouldn't investigate his son.



You wouldn't make these sorts of threads unless you wanted people to believe you. Well. I suppose you would if you were nothing more than a troll.

So you know the truth about everything but won't share with everyone all your sources of this fantastic information. Gotcha.

That's marxist theory, not a fact. One of the problems with something like "socialism" is that there can be different forms and degrees but people jump to assuming the extremes. The thing that's always struck me as odd though, is that the US for example already has some socialism and there's no way the majority would want to get rid of any of it and yet "socialism bad" is the mantra. The reality though is that it's not a question of having it, it's simply of how far to take it. I suppose the issue really comes down to culture. Which culture will win out in the end. The one that wants to put people first, or the one that wants to put money first. I don't rally want to see either side "win" but instead reach a balance that works far better than it currently is.

Maybe I wasn't clear with what I meant. AI/tech will soon be able to perfectly mimic a persons voice so that it's indistinguishable from the real thing. Voice recordings, pictures, video recordings... they'll all be just as useless as a fallible persons "word".

Are you talking about him going on Alex Jones? I think it's far more likely he played to that particular audience with a conspiracy in order to get loyal followers. But as I said, we'll never know the truth. Even if he said he was "forced", or if he said he wasn't, could we really believe him? I've seen too many people claim thing one thing one day and a decade or two later claim something else when it comes to these sorts of things.

This thread is a freakin train wreck. The majority don't know the difference between socialism, socialist and communism. Wow.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

Yesterday I looked into something like 10 "scientists" that deny it, none of which were actual climate scientists. Technically, some don't. They're "skeptical". Or don't think the science is there enough yet. Then there was a guy who was shown to have lied about his credentials amongst other things. Another guy who was promoting his own ideas as to what is changing climate. He predicted we'd enter a cooling phase last year. And then the "best" was a guy who'd written a book. One graph he used had previously been shown to be bogus and the originators of it had withdrawn it. Another graph he put data points in the wrong lace to skew things. He claims volcanoes are the cause. Scientists with the data said, no, humans are doing 130 times what volcanoes are doing. He shot back and said well you're not taking into account undersea volcanoes. They replied back, no, our data includes that. That's what I find whenever I go looking. So please. Please do show me where you're getting all your info.

This is something you might be interested in. Muller was labeled as a denier although he would say "skeptic" and found fault with the data. Thing I found humorous is that the Koch brothers were one of those that funded the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

And here's an interesting interview from him where he talks about a bunch of things, including the exaggeration you mentioned.

https://www.sumologic.com/podcast/climate-science-data-richard-muller/

They didn't say they heard him say he hated him etc. That might be considered a witness, or hearsay. But that's not what they said.


huh? lol

You must be a mental midget or have reading comprehension issues. I said twice there is bias. What I said is that the video proves none of the claims as I pointed out.

And here's something to think about. Do we have proof all those people in the videos work at CNN? Do we know if any of it was staged or not? Do we know if that guys was a plant or not? I simply do not believe everything blindly like a good little sheep.

Not like any of it will matter soon. AI is going to make voice recordings useless as proof and then deep fakes will finish it off for videos and we'll all be fucked.

Could be. But I watched an interview with someone that's worked with him and they said he's not an Ideologue. They said he's basically a business guy who will go where the "clicks" are. Doubt we'll ever know the truth though.

My first message was about how ineffective you are in trying to make people see your point of view when you use blatantly false information and then continue to argue about it even when it's shown how it's false. The fact that you took that as a personal attack says more about you and your state of mind than about anything else.

I didn't say they were valid news sources. But they are a good way for me to come up with alternate avenues of thought and research for information. I would love to know where you get all your "valid" information from. Please do share as I'm always looking for more places for facts.

I don't watch MSNBC.. Probably count on one hand how many times I've watched anything from them. I get my information all over the place even including things like Glenn Beck sometimes, Ben Shapiro.. You know.. Other then some CNN, I listen to more people bashing the left then actually listening to the left.. And when I want the facts, I go and dig it up from all sorts of sources so I can piece together the truth. Go figure.

You must be really insecure in yourself and your "facts" if you have to immediately turn to attacking someone. I have yet to see you actually prove anything to anyone. Your ranting like an insane person is entertaining though.

ummmm.... yeah, that's his job, to set the direction for them, just as Murdoch does at FOX... and once again, the video cherry picked those specific things. What other stories did he tell them to put out besides the twitter thing? Of course they're not going to show any of that cause all they wanted to show was specific stuff about Trump as that's the message they want to put out.

I already said it's clear that CNN presents a bias just as everyone else does. It makes me sad what's happened with them over the last 4 years or so.

Here's the thing.. the video is labeled with "...  Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS". There was no proof of that, just people's opinion that they think he hates Trump. The only thing I could maybe say is that he views FOX as bad for america and so is positioning things to combat that. That would be a really stupid idea as being biased to fight against bias is a losing strategy. But that's what happens when people get emotional and don't think rationally.

Part two is labeled "...CNN Leadership Picks Winners and Losers on Eve of Debate...". Again, no proof of that.

And also ".... They(CNN) like Warren a lot". No proof, just some guy saying what he thinks.

Maybe you should look at things objectively... for what they are, as opposed to looking for confirmation bias or what they want all the sheep to think.

She's supposed to be on a 6 month book tour with Bill so unless for some reason she suddenly cancelled that, there's no way she's going to run again. It just makes for some entertaining twitter banter and gets her press that she can use to promote her book.

I don't understand how you think anyone can take anything you have to say about theses sorts of things seriously, when it's crystal clear that Biden was implementing the US policy at the time, not to mention all the other countries/groups that were also calling for the guy to be fired. When you throw out garbage like this, then even if you bring up real points that are worth discussing, you simply get dismissed immediately.

So drudge has this as the pic of Warren.



I couldn't help but think of this iconic guy.



Do you think it's a coincidence? Memes of Warren are certainly welcome lol

While bias is obvious, I don't see any proof of anything in there. Lots of guys having beers saying what they "think", not know as fact. No "smoking gun" type of thing. And as for the calls with Zucker etc, all I saw was cherry picked fragments. Context is everything and unless we hear everything they talked about, we can't get a clear picture. For example. The left went all crazy over that parody video of Trump taking out his foes in the church. I went and looked at a bunch of videos that guy/group have done and came away with the impression that it's nothing more than hero worship type of stuff, not that we need to "kill" the media or "enemies".

So is there a veritas video of the same sort of thing for FOX? Would LOVE to see that one as it would be a hell of a lot of fun. Somehow I doubt they have or would do one.

Did he? Well he's also the guy that said he would attack Monero and then didn't right? So...... Yeah...

What do you mean "my SV"? You think I support that cause I've posted in there? I think my more recent comment in there sort of shows I don't.

I'd be worried about "all" coins. Bitcoin Cash was attacked and they did a 51% double spend on it rewriting the ledger that isn't supposed to be rewritten. Course they "justified" it.. Didn't ETH do the same thing? And there was another coin that had the same sort of thing didn't they? vertcoin or via or something? These things have already happened and so someone just has to have a good enough reason and they can do it to any coin.

But sure. If you can't argue the issues then say FUD. Sort of says it all right there.