Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
Induveca wrote:penbeast0 wrote:If you are going to make extremely damaging accusations about real people or groups, you had better have some serious and real evidence before airing them.
Sadly the bar for "serious" and "real", has been lowered to "published". Nearly everything published by the MSM, even remotely political, is a quasi-editorial hit piece.
tontoz wrote:montestewart wrote:tontoz wrote:
It didnt start out with "thousands of people all over the world". It started out with accusations in one city that the church aggressively denied. Nobody at the time could have predicted that it would blow up into an international scandal.
I am basically indifferent to pizzagate but when you look at things that have been proven to be true (Weiner/Hastert) i can see why people aren't so quick to dismiss it.
If you are talking about Boston, it was better covered in Ireland before that story broke, and yes, it was thousands of people all over the world, and many outlets, including occasionally MSM reporting on it.
Much as the church tried so very hard to make it all sound like a "crazy conspiracy theory," it never seemed like one to me, because the evidence was the victims, from all over the world, having nothing to do with each other. What sounded like a "crazy conspiracy theory" was the official church's constantly shifting denials. What sounded guilty almost immediately to me was the church, sounding like a classic villain in a movie.
The worldwide Catholic Church priest-molester scandals were more like an avalanche of allegations that widespread, monied interests tried hard to ignore, despite evidence. Pizzagate has lurid descriptions of pasta and no actual proof of anything, no identified victim, just ridiculously disconnected dots connected by anonymous whackos on whacko websites, read by other people on other whacko website who say, "Could be, they haven't proven it didn't happen." Don't they have a name for that?
Someone needs to do a lots more MSM journalism, you know, with actual facts, before I'm going to believe it's anything but aliens that were molesting those boys.
So you weren't one of the many people who thought the priest scandal wasn't a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't change my point. A lot of people simply weren't aware of what was going on all over the world at the time. The media landscape was very different back then.
I don't know enough to say whether or not pizzagate is real or bogus. I need more info before I can believe it is true but I also need more info before I can dismiss it. I am not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Illuminaire wrote:The article that Nate linked is actually pretty darn solid, Donkey. It doesn't take the crazy conspiratorial position that THIS MUST BE HAPPENING. It sticks to the known facts (without twisted interpretations) and harkens back to actual cases of secret pedophilia rings that have been proven over the last 25 years. I agree with that article's general conclusion... there probably isn't a ton of truth to pizzagate, but if even 5% of it is, it's worth taking the time to consider and investigate it.
Because, sadly, people in power *have* used that power to abuse children before, and they will again.
I still don't think there is any truly credible evidence of wrongdoing coming from the amateur sleuths, but... them Podestas are creepy fellows. Maybe we can all agree on that, at least.
gtn130 wrote:Illuminaire wrote:The article that Nate linked is actually pretty darn solid, Donkey. It doesn't take the crazy conspiratorial position that THIS MUST BE HAPPENING. It sticks to the known facts (without twisted interpretations) and harkens back to actual cases of secret pedophilia rings that have been proven over the last 25 years. I agree with that article's general conclusion... there probably isn't a ton of truth to pizzagate, but if even 5% of it is, it's worth taking the time to consider and investigate it.
Because, sadly, people in power *have* used that power to abuse children before, and they will again.
I still don't think there is any truly credible evidence of wrongdoing coming from the amateur sleuths, but... them Podestas are creepy fellows. Maybe we can all agree on that, at least.
No it's not lol
Induveca wrote:Gtn,
Support of an organization does not require one to agree with 100% of all actions performed by said organization.
This is something which I assumed was readily obvious, but once again you've proven me wrong. I'll clarify with a Wizard analogy.
I.e.: Strong Wizards supporter, angered by the Mahinmi signing and continued reign of Grunfeld.
Induveca wrote:Gtn,
Support of an organization does not require one to agree with 100% of all actions performed by said organization.
This is something which I assumed was readily obvious, but once again you've proven me wrong. I'll clarify with a Wizard analogy.
I.e.: Strong Wizards supporter, angered by the Mahinmi signing and continued reign of Grunfeld.
EXCLUSIVE-In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty - sources
WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:Illuminaire wrote:The article that Nate linked is actually pretty darn solid, Donkey. It doesn't take the crazy conspiratorial position that THIS MUST BE HAPPENING. It sticks to the known facts (without twisted interpretations) and harkens back to actual cases of secret pedophilia rings that have been proven over the last 25 years. I agree with that article's general conclusion... there probably isn't a ton of truth to pizzagate, but if even 5% of it is, it's worth taking the time to consider and investigate it.
Because, sadly, people in power *have* used that power to abuse children before, and they will again.
I still don't think there is any truly credible evidence of wrongdoing coming from the amateur sleuths, but... them Podestas are creepy fellows. Maybe we can all agree on that, at least.
No it's not lol
You said "lol" so therefore you have won the debate. Great job!
Wizardspride wrote:Click to read the rest
http://news.trust.org/item/20170209171124-868gh/EXCLUSIVE-In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty - sources
WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
CONCERNS OVER PHONE CALLS
The phone call with Putin has added to concerns that Trump is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders.
Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.
Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral "pre-briefing" from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.
Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine if Trump received a briefing from his national security adviser Michael Flynn.
gtn130 wrote:Wizardspride wrote:Click to read the rest
http://news.trust.org/item/20170209171124-868gh/EXCLUSIVE-In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty - sources
WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
CONCERNS OVER PHONE CALLS
The phone call with Putin has added to concerns that Trump is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders.
Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.
Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral "pre-briefing" from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.
Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine if Trump received a briefing from his national security adviser Michael Flynn.
This is good. Trump supporters like this.
popper wrote:I think the state dept decides either directly or indirectly (through the resettlement efforts of their contractors like Catholic Charities) where refugees are resettled. Trump would be wise to resettle all refugees from the seven countries in the Washington judge's neighborhood. If they run out of room there, then resettle in the neighborhood of the three judges who upheld the stay.
bealwithit wrote:popper wrote:I think the state dept decides either directly or indirectly (through the resettlement efforts of their contractors like Catholic Charities) where refugees are resettled. Trump would be wise to resettle all refugees from the seven countries in the Washington judge's neighborhood. If they run out of room there, then resettle in the neighborhood of the three judges who upheld the stay.
Probably get some great food from those new neighbors at the welcome party. They are quite hospitable and nice people, you'd know if you've ever hung out with them before. Who am I kidding, I'm sure you know from experience!
popper wrote:I think the state dept decides either directly or indirectly (through the resettlement efforts of their contractors like Catholic Charities) where refugees are resettled. Trump would be wise to resettle all refugees from the seven countries in the Washington judge's neighborhood. If they run out of room there, then resettle in the neighborhood of the three judges who upheld the stay.
️