what's even more sad is how loving close minded you are, Iq.
What lol
Dude, there's plenty of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. That doesn't loving mean that we're going to trust every single one regardless of how little evidence it has to back it up.
There's a thing called healthy skepticism. I use that.
Nowhere have I dismissed something because I don't agree with it politically. Your quotes are completely irrelevant and half the quotes are from a completely different topic of conversation.
also I got a kick out of this
The Clintons and Obamas have been caught illegally spending charity money on multiple occasions, but ah that's not true, it's just a conspiracy theory! And what's that? Woah, it's almost as if that in order to expose the underworkings of our government, you have to break laws that are put in place there so you don't expose the underworkings of the government!
Aahaha, no. That's not how it works at all. I honestly don't know if they've illegally spent charity money. I'm open to being convinced, as I've said I view everything with healthy skepticism, not dismissal because it doesn't validate my views.
But frankly, that's irrelevant at this point. It would put them on equal playing ground at the very most. And no, you absolutely do not have to break the law to reveal corruption. Whistleblowing is one thing, but invading someones home is completely different. Are you seriously trying to justify loving breaking and entering into a senators home? Hahahaha, jesus christ, dude. That's loving hilarious.
What's that, Annoying Orange is hiring people to expose the Clinton Campaigns shady and illegal practices, which all turned out to be true? Oh wait nvm all of it was "heavily edited" so it's a propaganda piece of course. Oh wait, even though there are huge spans of footage released showing them admitting to these illegal acts, just because he won't release all of the footage, which contains information that can damage all of his journalists and possibly personal information regarding to themselves, oh well then that means it's all been edited.
Do you have any idea why the words "Confict of Interest" and "Unreliable" exist? Let's take a look back to when another person was, reportedly, trying to expose corruption in the FDA and vaccine manufacturers. His name was Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He had his paper, "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" (Great title, I know) published in the well-trusted peer-reviewed journal The Lancet in February of 1998.
In this study, he attempted to make a connection between the MMR vaccine and rapid onset of autism. Only problem was, the evidence was shoddy, poorly documented and with a laughably low sample size. On top of that, competitor vaccine makers had paid him a huge sum of money just beforehand. As a result, his study was retracted. Why? Because the study was
unreliable and had a huge
conflict of interest. He had huge incentive to fake his results, manipulate the data to suit his needs and publish the fraudulent results. As a result, what he provided was
untrustworthy.Guess what? As it turns out, it was completely fraudulent and vaccines don't cause autism. This is why we don't trust people who have conflicts of interest and present shoddy, incomplete, heavily-edited and editorialized footage.
Because it's unreliable and presents the creator with a huge incentive to fake the results. Refusing to release the unedited footage is another huge red flag for this exact reason. Had he not been faking it, he would have absolutely no problem once again proving his point by releasing the unedited footage. Note, unedited does not mean it has personally identifying information in it. In fact it usually doesn't. But even if it did, if someone wanted to find the journalists it would already be extremely easy given that the people who were interviewed, you know,
saw their faces. They also could have given the unedited footage to the police as evidence, which would make sure their identities are not made public. But alas, they did not.
Imagine if someone came out with a huge grand exposé for Annoying Orange and it was revealed that the filmmaker was a convicted criminal who was paid $10,000 by Clinton herself to create the footage, with absolutely no comment from the filmmaker or the clintons. You'd be screaming foul at the top of your lungs even if they passed every other test.
Yeah who gives a forget that it's already been examined by millions of people who have common sense to see when something has been faked and hasn't been
Ah yes, the good ol'
Common Sense fallacy. Because people aren't susceptible to biases, are they? And they were fired because it would be bad press for them to have stayed. No more, no less. Public relations 101.
<I lost the quote where you say something about me repeatedly bringing up the police>
Yeah, I do bring that up a lot. Because it's important when you're accusing someone of doing something criminal. If you have actual proof that someone committed a criminal act, you get it to the appropriate authorities. And don't act as if every single FBI member is somehow conspiring to keep certain people out of jail. It consists primarily of ordinary people with their own political views. So yes, your exposé is a total joke if it claims someone committed a crime and then does absolutely nothing whatsoever to try and prosecute them for it. Not even
attempting. At least loving show that you tried. Even if you had absolute faith that nothing would come of it, all that shows is that you have no faith in your own "journalism." And that means I'm not going to have any faith in it either.
Poll