Shadowgate

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking.
What's wrong with spreading false conspiracy theories for profit?

That should be very obvious.

She has a profit motive for falsifying and sensationalising things in her documentary. Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that.
Follow the money, right?

Should be easy for you to point out the falsifications so
enlighten us

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Should be easy for you to point out the falsifications so
enlighten us

But why should I?

She has profit motive for doing so as well as exaggerating facts.
Isn't that enough to assume that she is doing those things?

It is usually enough for you guys when it suits you.

Also, again, she worked for Info Wars, thus we can conclude she has no journalistic integrity.

Cheerful Spring2

Not unexpected here, people with their eyes open could see it- Russiagate was a democratic witch hunt.

Carter Page: ‘I was a pawn in the Democrat crusade to bring down Trump’

Not until lurid headlines damned Carter Page as a traitor to his country in September 2016, six weeks before the presidential election, did he realize someone was using him to play a dirty political trick.

Reporters had been hounding the energy investor with strangely detailed questions about his ties to Russia. Page told each of them that he was a former US Navy lieutenant, a graduate of Annapolis, an Eagle Scout — hardly a likely protagonist in some cloak-and-dagger drama.

But he had also served as a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump. And secretly, within a collection of Democratic opposition-research memos soon to be known as the Steele Dossier, Page had been cast as the GOP candidate’s liaison to Vladimir Putin.

It was the launch of the collusion tale that nearly destroyed a presidency. And the little-known Page, now 49, had an unsought starring role.

In fact, as he repeatedly informed FBI investigators all the way up to Director James Comey himself, Page was a longtime CIA informant, not only on Russian affairs but on China and the Middle East.

His status as a trusted US intelligence source extended beyond the CIA. Only months before, Page had helped the FBI itself make a case against an accused Russian spook.

That should have been enough to clear Page’s name. Instead, the FBI painted a target on his back.

Serious allegations made here, arrests should be made then?

In August 2016, documents show, the CIA told the Crossfire Hurricane team that Page had been a trusted informant for years. That explained all of the Russian contacts the FBI saw as suspicious — two months before agents filed the first warrant against Page.

The FBI illegally withheld that exculpatory evidence from the FISA court.

Later, in June 2017, Clinesmith — by then a member of Mueller’s staff — made the offense overt by altering a CIA document that confirmed Page’s status with the agency, Durham told the court. Clinesmith took a guilty plea on Aug. 19.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/carter-page-i-was-a-pawn-in-the-democrat-crusade-to-bring-down-trump/?utm_source=reddit.com

Water John

enno99 wrote: »

What is wrong with getting paid for your work ?

What crap ?

That's what Stormy Daniels said.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But why should I?

She has profit motive for doing so as well as exaggerating facts.
Isn't that enough to assume that she is doing those things?

It is usually enough for you guys when it suits you.

Also, again, she worked for Info Wars, thus we can conclude she has no journalistic integrity.

Pathetic you accuse someone of telling lies then refuse to point out where she lied
how can anyone take you seriously

As for a filmmaker/journalist profiting from their work
the godfather of sceptics is doing the same


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Michael-Shermer/e/B001H6MCNY?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1598310295&sr=8-1

Is every thing he says a crock also ?

enno99

Overheal wrote: »

It should be noted the 60 mins segment is from 2011. Congress passed the STOCK act 5 months later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#:~:text=291%2C%20enacted%20April%204%2C%202012,Congress%20and%20other%20government%20employees.

In a bizzare quirk, we’ve permitted our politicians to do things that we can’t. Prior to 2012, Congress members were not prohibited from insider trading. Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina was a fierce opponent of a bill that ultimately banned this practice. In an interview at the time, Burr said about the potential new law, “It’s ludicrous.” He voted against the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act and said, “I mean, it’s insane.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-accused-of-insider-trading-dumping-stocks-after-coronavirus-briefings/#7872b3d14a45


That didnt seem to stop them

Imagine the scope for this type of crime when you have private contractors in cahoots with intelligence agencies :eek:

Unmaksing,email records etc

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

As for a filmmaker/journalist profiting from their work

She doesn't profit from work, she profits from selling lies and disinformation, like Alex Jones.

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

She doesn't profit from work, she profits from selling lies and disinformation, like Alex Jones.

Point out the lies in the documentary

Same about the gofundme rubbish you guys were ranting about
Not a peep about dirty cop Andrew McCabe fird from the FBI and getting 500k

Why should anyone take you guys seriously

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Pathetic you accuse someone of telling lies then refuse to point out where she lied
how can anyone take you seriously

But I haven't accused her of lying.
You are once again misrepresenting my position.

My position is that given she works/worked for
Info Wars and is proposing a theory that inherently silly on the face of it, I see no reason to take her at all seriously.

I make the additional point that you guys are applying a double standard.
This forum is full of conspiracy theorists accusing any number of people of all sorts of shady behaviour based solely and purely on the notion that they stand to make a profit.

Yet here, we have an example of some one with a profit motive and every opportunity to deceive people on a number of levels. We also know she doesn't have any journalistic integrity as she works/worked for Info Wars.
In this case you guys are jumping to her defence and suddenly understand that this argument is illogical.

When it's someone you guys don't like or want to accuse, then an appeal to motive is more than enough to accuse them.
When it's someone you like, you say that appeals to motive don't apply
That's the double standard.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But I haven't accused her of lying.
You are once again misrepresenting my position.

My position is that given she works/worked for
Info Wars and is proposing a theory that inherently silly on the face of it, I see no reason to take her at all seriously.

I make the additional point that you guys are applying a double standard.
This forum is full of conspiracy theorists accusing any number of people of all sorts of shady behaviour based solely and purely on the notion that they stand to make a profit.

Yet here, we have an example of some one with a profit motive and every opportunity to deceive people on a number of levels. We also know she doesn't have any journalistic integrity as she works/worked for Info Wars.
In this case you guys are jumping to her defence and suddenly understand that this argument is illogical.

When it's someone you guys don't like or want to accuse, then an appeal to motive is more than enough to accuse them.
When it's someone you like, you say that appeals to motive don't apply
That's the double standard.

She has a profit motive for falsifying

falsifying
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Wikipedia.
Related to falsifying: refutability
fal·si·fy (fôl′sə-fī′)
v. fal·si·fied, fal·si·fy·ing, fal·si·fies
v.tr.
1. To state untruthfully; misrepresent.
2.
a. To make false by altering or adding to: falsify testimony.
b. To counterfeit; forge: falsify a visa.
3. To declare or prove to be false

means lies

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

falsifying
(Snip quoting form a dictionary cliche)

Yes. I'm aware of the definition of the word thanks.

But ironically, you seem to have misunderstood the sentance.
I'm not saying that she did falsify anything.
I said she has a profit motive for falsifying things.
I said that as part of my point that I explained in my previous post.(ie. You guys apply a double standard.)

Are you saying she has no profit motive for falsifying, exaggerating and sensationalising things?

Again, I'm not saying she's lying. I never claimed any specific things she said are lies.

You keep misrepresenting me. I'm not sure why you think that's helping.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking.
What's wrong with spreading false conspiracy theories for profit?

That should be very obvious.

She has a profit motive for falsifying and sensationalising things in her documentary. Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that.
Follow the money, right?

Do you want the definition of weasel

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Do you want the definition of weasel

No thanks. You're doing a great job of demonstrating.

I haven't weaseled out of anything. I just corrected your misrepresentation of my position directly and clearly.

For example you are misrepresenting my post above. Perhaps because you did not understand the operative part:

Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that.

Meanwhile you are actually avoiding my points and questions, which could actually be defined as weasely.

For example I asked you directly: are you denying she has a profit motive for falsifying things?
Rather than googling the definition of words, you could try answering points directly and fully on the first try.
Ya know, for a change...

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks. You're doing a great job of demonstrating.

I haven't weaseled out of anything. I just corrected your misrepresentation of my position directly and clearly.

For example you are misrepresenting my post above. Perhaps because you did not understand the operative part:


Meanwhile you are actually avoiding my points and questions, which could actually be defined as weasely.

For example I asked you directly: are you denying she has a profit motive for falsifying things?
Rather than googling the definition of words, you could try answering points directly and fully on the first try.
Ya know, for a change...

Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that.

So your a conspiracy theorist now LOL

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So your a conspiracy theorist now LOL

Lol no. You are failing to understand simple English here in your rush to misrepresent me.

I wasn't saying she was falsifying anything. I haven't claimed that.

I was illustrating how conspiracy theorists like yourself use the appeal to motive. And I was highlighting how you selectively apply it depending on whether or not it's convenient.
But it appears this has gone over your head.

When I say "by your logic" I am pointing out why your logic is flawed and why you shouldn't use that argument.

Again this lady stands to profit from lying and exaggerating things.
Does that automatically mean she is lying?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

it's very unlikely that the documentary is very good or factual.

your first post in the thread

enno99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sexaPqafd_w

A legal look at the arrest

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

your first post in the thread

Again, you are misrepresenting me.
It's very dishonest.

You are grasping at straws to find something to back up your accusation now you've realised you made an error in reading comprehension.

I did not accuse her of falsifying anything in that post.

You are also avoiding my points and questions.

For example I asked you directly:
Does she have a profit motive for falsifying things and exaggerating and misrepresenting things?

If so, does this automatically mean she is doing those things?

Yes or no to both questions would be fine.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are misrepresenting me.
It's very dishonest.

Yea. A "reporter" from Infowars.
There's no way she can be lying...
We just gotta take her word for it...

The documentary can't be a good one because it's about fantasy, produced by known liars.

Still think your being misrepresented

Treppen

So anyone got a link to the video?

enno99

Treppen wrote: »

So anyone got a link to the video?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fxvKcGA3xyq/

Here you go

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Still think your being misrepresented

Yup. You do that a lot.
And you're still dodging questions and points and running away from your previous claims.

Might wanna look up that definition of "weasel" after all.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. You do that a lot.
And you're still dodging questions and points and running away from your previous claims.

Might wanna look up that definition of "weasel" after all.

like I said previously why would anyone take you serious

You insinuated she was a liar many times and when you were asked to point out where in the film she lied you couldnt

you went into weasel mode like you always do

Thanks for the chat

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

like I said previously why would anyone take you serious

You insinuated she was a liar many times and when you were asked to point out where in the film she lied you couldnt

Well see now your moving the goal posts. You previously claimed that I said she was a liar.
Now you're accusing me of just "insinuating" she's a liar.

But I did neither, as we can see from the quotes you've been trying to misrepresent.

enno99 wrote: »

you went into weasel mode like you always do

Thanks for the chat

Lol. I corrected your misrepresentations as you dodged the questions and points put to you.

Weasel mode. Sure.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Well see now your moving the goal posts. You previously claimed that I said she was a liar.
Now you're accusing me of just "insinuating" she's a liar.

But I did neither, as we can see from the quotes you've been trying to misrepresent.


Lol. I corrected your misrepresentations as you dodged the questions and points put to you.

Weasel mode. Sure.

like i said insinuate = weasel

Bet those arguments sound great in your head LOL

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fxvKcGA3xyq/

Here you go

It is always about the jews

Karl Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were all Jews. All of the major communist leaders and intellectuals were Jews. Trying to fight communism without talking about the Jews involved is like trying to dry off by jumping into a swimming pool. Jews stopped backing communism only after Israel became an independent state and Stalin started purging Zionists. Now only about 80% of the diaspora are Communists, the other 20% are Zionists since most of the Zionist ones moved to Israel. Communist Jews Run the Left, Zionist Jews Run the right. It is known as the Kosher Sand-which.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

like i said insinuate = weasel

Yes you said that. But it's false. Like your previous claim that I said she had lied.

I didn't claim she lied.
I didn't insinuate that she lied.

You are grasping at straws and you are misrepresenting things so you can pretend you've caught me out. It's very silly.

And all the while you still dodge any points put to you.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you said that. But it's false. Like your previous claim that I said she had lied.

I didn't claim she lied.
I didn't insinuate that she lied.

You are grasping at straws and you are misrepresenting things so you can pretend you've caught me out. It's very silly.

And all the while you still dodge any points put to you.

No matter others can judge for themselves

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

No matter others can judge for themselves

help me out here. when did they insinuate that she was lying? I'm looking for a post where he does that and i can't find it.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

No matter others can judge for themselves

Yup.

And the point remains unaddressed.

Conspiracy theorists have no issue using appeals to motive when it suits them but then whinge when someone turns it around on someone they like.