Where? In what numbers?
Come and join the rest of us in the real world: 'Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth'.
No they don't.
Libya is finished, what country will be next?
- Thread starter PsychoPigeon
- Start date
Where? In what numbers?
Come and join the rest of us in the real world: 'Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth'.
No they don't.
The thing is we don't know. It must at least be in the thousands. Many states don't require ID to cast a vote. Project Veritas showed the lengths the DNC PACs were going to go to (we bus them around to contested areas). We've seen the weaponisation of the FBI/IRS/ATF against conservative groups in the US. The problem is Evan, people like you want a full free confession and ignore multiple videos. One of the biggest reasons I stopped posting in the Trump Presidential election thread was due to this same thing.
So voter fraud never happens, and when it does its non-consequential. Wasn't there a woman who admitted 34 counts of separate voter fraud? YouTube and certainly my news feeds had more than enough videos showing voter fraud. Heck if you don't trust right wing groups, search the issue Jim Keady (Nike expose guy) who highlights the issues with voting problems.
*face palm*
Edit: Right, may have misunderstood my meaning. Things shown or accepted as fact change. People who present evidence can have that evidence overturned or refuted. Thus in that aspect the nature of the fact changes, yes?
Last edited:
Conspiracy theorist (nut) is just a label for people that can think critically, or for themselves.
I would rather be that than a sheeple/zealot.
I always reckon one of the reasons Alex Jones is so highly strung (aside from the Pro Z Male Formula or whatever it is), is because he has seen stuff and is so outraged that other people aren't annoyed about it.
Conspiracy theorist is now just a derogatory term that carries zero weight and is a sophist method to try and shut down debate. In other words, a losers method of argument.
No what I mean is that Britain and the USA were about to go full Libya on Syria but the whole thing got derailed when Cameron lost the commons vote on attacking Syria, that caused Obama to have to back down rather than go it alone (comically handed a lifeline there by Russia offering to destroy all of Syria's chemical weapons).
Now one could argue that if we had deposed Assad as planned in 2013 then ISIS would never have gotten a foothold in Syria and it would have worked out better, but I still think our government made the right decision not to intervene.
You know you just posted that in a thread with Libya in the title right?
It's actually the exact opposite.
A "conspiracy nut" is usually both poor at critical thinking but also oblivious to that fact, this is why they choose to believe conspiracies over the significantly more plausible "official" stories in the first place, they selectively choose facts/theories to fit what they want to believe and dismiss any evidence that contradicts their belief, rather than believe what the facts/evidence imply.
There are many many examples of the practice but here's a couple of the most common ones:
Chemtrails nuts wanting to believe the theory so much that they can completely ignore the fact that even if you remove the cargo, passengers and fuel from a plane you couldn't physically fit that many chemicals on a plane and even if you used magic to do it it would then be too heavy to take off, nevermind cruise at it's normal altitude/speed.
9/11 nuts actually being able to watch a video of the towers falling at sub-freefall speeds, with their own eyes, and yet believe they're freefalling simply because their narrator and desire tell them so.
Generic nuts ragging on the BBC for being super biased simply because it's generally balanced coverage doesn't mirror their own personal bias (the fact both the right and left wing make this complaint should make it obvious to any of them capable of critical thinking but no).
So, you think the unleaded kerosene is harmless for the atmosphere?!
It is more toxic and more dangerous than the ordinary diesel on the ground.
Just look at the chemicals that serve as additives:
Additives
The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[13][14]
- Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
- Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as a component, is an example
- Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
- Fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
- Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs); Kathon FP1.5 Microbiocide and Biobor JF.[15]
- Metal deactivator can be added to remediate the deleterious effects of trace metals on the thermal stability of the fuel. The one allowable additive is N,N’-disalicylidene 1,2-propanediamine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Last edited:
That is as bad as the conspiracy theorists - not everyone that believes in "chemtrail" theories believe in literal [visible] lines in the sky - and chemical/biological warfare doesn't mean you are spraying dense liquid chemicals there are many agents that can (potentially) be used some that only require incredibly small amounts to be effective.
Porton Down carried out a lot of controversial tests a long those lines in the 1950s such as https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
Or it's all just an act....as he admitted.
Military interventions which lead to destroyed countries and millions of innocent citizens lost their lives is as criminal as allowing bad regimes to dictate what happens in those given countries.
If the U.S really want more democracy and not just more chaos and worse matters, they need to start looking for more normal approaches how to change the cultures in those countries without flowing blood everywhere.
As per jet fuels, diesel and use of crude oil, the sooner we use clean fuels, the better for the Planet, and ultimately for ourselves.
Otherwise, we won't have a good future here.
If the U.S really want more democracy and not just more chaos and worse matters, they need to start looking for more normal approaches how to change the cultures in those countries without flowing blood everywhere.
As per jet fuels, diesel and use of crude oil, the sooner we use clean fuels, the better for the Planet, and ultimately for ourselves.
Otherwise, we won't have a good future here.
Yes they do, that (that contrails and some types of clouds are chemicals) is one of the cornerstones of the conspiracy theory, if they don't believe that they aren't chemtrail nuts. Some of them have recently started complaining about cloud seeding too (though not referring to it as such so they can pretend it's not a completely different thing and they weren't wrong all along) which is what you may have seen.
No, hence why I made no mention of it in my post. All fossil fuels are bad for the planet.
... During divorce proceedings where his ex wife was reportedly concerned for the wellbeing of their children. I.e he had to say it was an act to stop the oh so "family" friendly "family" courts from not stopping contact. Only he knows the details, but from my lengthy experience and knowledge of how the family court operates: Its extremely likely if not absolutely certain
There are loads and loads of people, especially in the US, that believe in conspiracies of airborne distribution of things like mind altering agents who are lumped in with chemtrail nuts but don't actually believe it is manifest by literal visible chem/contrails.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
If anyone hasn't seen it, it's worth trying to dig up the old BBC programme Conspiracy Road Trip. One of the highlights was a guy who believed that controlled explosions of thermite was used to destroy the twin towers. A demolition expert showed them that thermite didn't really have an effort on the beams used on the twin towers. Despite seeing it with his own eyes this guy refused to believe it.
Despite what they say you have to have a very closed mind to believe in some of the conspiracy theories. As you have to ignore most the evidence that says the obvious and pick the stuff that supports your own view.
So yes, while in court he told the truth while under oath, and whilst not under oath he talks BS
Stopped from seeing my kids... Or lie. Nice to know which you would choose.
That said lying in Family court (particularly here in the UK) lying is encouraged and even if found out NOTHING will happen.
