Perjury Charges Looming? Run Weiner's Weiner Story!

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: facedye

Don't look at the headlines, they're a joke, they have been for a long time. Look for the story deep inside, a tiny little byline lost between the car and furniture ads. As far as the TV based news/propaganda stations, ignore them, unless you need a good laugh because they are so far off the mark it's just gotten ridiculous.

Since the goverment changed the law concerning lying in ads and the government's ability to fire off legal propaganda, nothing is worth listening to or reading. It's all BS. You have to go with what you see and whatever stories on the internet you can at least vet to a reasonable extent.

Cheers - Dave

Dave that's a fantastic point, and it's EXACTLY why I follow the mainstream news these days.

In my opinion it's a wonderful jumping off point for understanding what the powers that be WANT you to be thinking about at any particular moment.

I've found a lot of usefulness in mainstream media once I've stepped back far enough to question the solidarity of their reporting. Reading what someone wants you to believe from a point of disbelief can often be very telling.

With all this being said, them changing the laws to produce propaganda and misleading articles like these can ALSO be taken as an act of intellectual aggression.

If not for any other reason, how can someone expect to publicly reintroduce clear propaganda campaigns into a society that does not condone that behavior and maintain stability? Based on this, it's clear to me that political agitation of the public these days is done almost entirely by design.

To show the deterministic nature of the propaganda, there are videos on YouTube showing exact same wording for a whole series of reported events by different reporters at different stations. What's really funny is when "leaders" from different countries follow almost exactly the same script for their speeches, almost word for word.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
You think it would require ALL news outlets to participate? What are you basing that on?

If you can still find information on a previous day's topic how are you being misled?

What logical fallacy am I committing?

Several, actually, but we can start with Presumptive.

You cannot within good conscience state that the media has never timed nor delivered a news story with an ulterior motive, looking to divert attention or mislead the general public.

Give me an example(s) where you were misled.

1. Is it not possible to be misled with information that's already readily available to you? What do you think sleight of hand is? What do you think advertising and marketing is?

2. Where have I declared an assumption? Have I actually stated anywhere in this thread that this MUST be a case of diversion?

3. Easy! Here's an example of the entire united states being misled:

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Your on, Dave - at those odds too.

If you win, I'll pay up. But then I'll also be leaving the internet for good if that happens.

Lol, that was a rhetorical bet. I don't expect to win anything but an "oh sh#t, he was right."

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: facedye
1. Is it not possible to be misled with information that's already readily available to you?

Is the information not being investigated or vetted?

What do you think sleight of hand is? What do you think advertising and marketing is?

Magic tricks and marketing are not the topic of your Original Post, it is 'misleading' by the media because a new topic came out today.

2. Where have I declared an assumption? Have I actually stated anywhere in this thread that this MUST be a case of diversion?

You said people are misled. That is assumptive. Who here is reporting that they are misled? Do you have any people agreeing with you that they feel misled and are not able to read about Clinton's email issue?

3. Easy! Here's an example of the entire united states being misled:

That is someone LYING to the media. Not the media purposefully misleading the public. Big, big difference.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I see based on your last post that your prerogative here is purely semantic.

You really think I'm "not able to read about the Clinton issue?" You must be trolling.

And oh, the media is being lied to? Poor media stations, with their professional journalists and editors whose job it is to fact-check and discern real information from propaganda and malice.

Because they don't get told what they can and cannot report on? Because they don't get handed talking points to stick to? Because they don't basically read the same script?

Who owns the media we're talking about by the way? The cameras, the crew, the stations and physical resources.. Are these owners private citizens or parts of larger organizations? Do you even know?

Do you even care?




"Is the information not being investigated or vetted?"

Do you always answer a direct question with a question? Forgive me if I choose to not respond to you past this point.

originally posted by: facedye
You really think I'm "not able to read about the Clinton issue?"

You claim people are being misled by the Weiner story yet have no one corroborating this and nothing to back up your extremely flawed Original Post. You are just running around in circles being outraged by a tempest in a tea pot and making non sequitur arguments.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
You really think I'm "not able to read about the Clinton issue?"

You claim people are being misled by the Weiner story yet have no one corroborating this and nothing to back up your extremely flawed Original Post. You are just running around in circles being outraged by a tempest in a tea pot and making non sequitur arguments.

All of the points you're making have been addressed in the first few responses of this thread.

originally posted by: facedye
All of the points you're making have been addressed in the first few responses of this thread.

Not really. You just keep repeating that people are being misled but no one seems to be coming forward to say they feel misled by the Weiner story.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
All of the points you're making have been addressed in the first few responses of this thread.

Not really. You just keep repeating that people are being misled but no one seems to be coming forward to say they feel misled by the Weiner story.

By the same token it seems like you just keep repeating that the media does no harm and should not be blamed for misrepresenting information. Oh, and that this is nothing more than a coincidence with respects to timing and relation.

I guess we all choose to see what we see.

originally posted by: facedye
By the same token it seems like you just keep repeating that the media does no harm and should not be blamed for misrepresenting information.

Really? Where did I say that? Maybe you can quote me.

Oh, and that this is nothing more than a coincidence with respects to timing and relation.

I know, the media gave the woman in question a jingle and said, 'Hey, sexting housewife, we need some help burying the Clinton email scandal that has been raging for over a year now. Can you blow up the headlines with Weiner's wiener?'

Makes total friggin sense.

You know what the funny part is,

I can't actually quote you on any hard statement because you don't make any.

Every time I've asked you a direct question or given a direct rebuttal to your speculation, it's been met with further complication and semantic weaving.

Let me make them for you since you time and time again seem unable to do so:

1. The mainstream media can and has been responsible for creating unnecessary conflicts.

2. The mainstream media can and has been responsible for misrepresenting information, as well as deliberate manipulation of public perception.

3. This could have very well been possible in this instance, given the circumstances.

None of these points denote the ridiculous instance you laid out, which you know everybody would already disagree with.

At the end of the day, this is simply a civil discussion on a forum designed to discuss conspiracies. This news story not only came off as awkwardly timed to me today, but also came off as opportunistic given statements made by congress and the FBI over the course of this past weekend. I felt this was reason enough to discuss it, as I enjoy & learn a lot from the input of other members here.

originally posted by: facedye
3. This could have very well been possible in this instance, given the circumstances.

Nope. Considering you have no corroboration.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Unfortunately that's your opinion, man.

Know the cool part about opinions? We all have them.

Know the bad part about opinions? We all have them.

Do you think having a discussion automatically necessitates someone having to connect all the dots for you?

I think there's enough here to bring about reasonable doubt that the timing and nature of this story is acceptable on its surface.

originally posted by: facedye
Unfortunately that's your opinion, man.

No, that's a fact son. Anyone on this thread feel they have been misled by Weiner?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
Unfortunately that's your opinion, man.

No, that's a fact son. Anyone on this thread feel they have been misled by Weiner?

Honestly, why do we give a damn about Wiener, or his wiener?

Don't we have better things to discuss?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
Unfortunately that's your opinion, man.

No, that's a fact son. Anyone on this thread feel they have been misled by Weiner?

Oh, what are you basing that fact on? Corroboration?

I think the deflection is about Huma herself.

She's been in the spotlight more than usual lately with the CF and SD and the jihadi journal.

She's a "wounded duck" that needs sympathy now because of her pervert hubby.

Who wants to be called a heartless butthole while the poor gal is going through so much?

It hit me like that when I saw the announcement that says, "please leave us alone through these difficult times"

The Clinton machine don't give a hoot about Carlos Danger, it's trying to protect Huma.

originally posted by: introvert
Honestly, why do we give a damn about Wiener, or his wiener?

Don't we have better things to discuss?

Buh, buh, buh, you are sooooo misled right now and need to be edumakated 'bout the media manipulation.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
Unfortunately that's your opinion, man.

No, that's a fact son. Anyone on this thread feel they have been misled by Weiner?

Honestly, why do we give a damn about Wiener, or his wiener?

Don't we have better things to discuss?

Precisely my point. Thank you.

originally posted by: facedye
Oh, what are you basing that fact on? Corroboration?

By the fact that zero people in this thread have reported feeling misled by this story.