When he is reporting something he is not straight up lying about he just skims the headline and then makes up stuff about it. You can sometimes see his brain work in real time, for example when he spots something in the body of the article that actually goes counter to his narrative he just yadda yaddas right past it and immediately moves on to something entirely different.
deleted by creator
Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK fuck fuck fuck
In the article someone linked below I found this section :
Archaeologists preserved the newly discovered remains using a variation of a technique developed by Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli in 1863. The process involves pouring liquid chalk into cavities left by decomposing bodies; this plaster fills gaps in preserved bones and teeth, creating a cast of the bodies as they looked at the moment of death.
So you find a cavity with bones and other remains in there and use it as a mold I suppose? They probably were excavating the city from the ash cover and when they found something that could be remains of a human they stopped digging and used said techniques to preserve the remains.
If a guy went topless nobody would have given a fuck is the more appropriate comparison, the fact that you have to intentionally reach for the wrong example to make your point work is proof, that the people calling you misogynistic are not far off.
All hail the compost worms!
Drake Lemar drama. Say that 10 times fast in a row.
the gullible idiots will disappear.
They’ll just jump on the next grifter that tells 'em what they want to hear.
Yeah, I’m a policy wonk too. I didn’t want to talk too broadly because I didn’t pay too much attention to Greenwald in the Infowars universe, but I heard the Q&A episode with Greenwald just recently so I was confident to not mix up too much.
It’s episode #709 2 Dan’s 2 War.
Yeah the documentary is nuts, Alex Lee Moyer is a such a hack, just letting Alex Jones assert things over an over without any interest in finding out if the things he says are true OR even remotely resemble anything he said in the past, is just terrible craftsmanship.
But, the endgame documentary made by Jones himself is way funnier, like that a lot of his source documentation is just left blank or “insert quote” or fucking dead Encarta links, that so shitty and dubious you have to admire the braveness to just put something like that out there.
There are few journalists willing to go against the status quo, even after going through constant smear campaigns and bad press from legacy media types!
Eeeh I have recently heard excerpts of his interview with Alex Jones about the documentary “Alex’s war” and oh boy did Greenwald sell his soul on that one.
Alex Jones unpromted says “I didn’t lie on purpose” 4 times within a couple of minutes, a couple of more times throughout the interview and Greenwald just ignores it.
For starters that’s not what a lie is, either you made a mistake or you lied. Furthermore he says that so often and always unpromted, which journalist would just ignore that?
Since it was a promotional interview for the documentary he likely got paid for it, but to have so little integrity to just let that fly made me question everything Greenwald did from that point on. I mean to take money from Alex Jones for an interview is a bad move from the jump, then leading an interview that doesn’t even address the answers Jones gives is bad, but to ignore that sentence at least 6 times completely is willfully shitty journalism to me.
Just to make sure, I am not questioning what he reported in the post, it is clearly and thoroughly documented what Israel did to the Palestinians during all of its existence. I am questioning Greenwalds motives and journalistic integrity in a broader sense than what was reported here.
it took 2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more, and they were already in the verge of losing.
Some historians argue that the bigger factor was the sowjets preparing to enter the war against Japan and that the nuclear bombs just kind of sped up the decision that was coming anyway.
You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.
That’s exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.
It’s a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don’t protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.
Your first link shows what happens when we don’t apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.
Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you’re in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.
Nope. They’re right, you’re wrong.
You didn’t even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket “both sides do it!” You just used more words.
And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the “bad speech” the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.
So the “bad speech” got plenty of “more speech” to counter but it didn’t change anything.
Ah, I was not aware thank you!
Is Cassettes a mistranslation? Or am I missing something here?
I like to drink a coffee and a glass of juice in the morning. I have put juice instead of milk in my coffee more often than I would admit.
They’re not even in the same packaging, one is a tetra pack, the other is a tall glass bottle.
Just don’t patronize me. “You’re just hungry” will make me angrier.
Don’t even mention it, just throw food at me. I will know what you’re doing, but deep down I’ll also know that you are right and will eat silently. In five minutes I’ll very likely say that I’m sorry for being a dick.
To be clear I am usually a very friendly person and when I am in a mood like described above I had a very stressful day and didn’t eat for 24 hours, so this is an extreme example.
Fair enough. The blocking function is just a god send to me. I just take a look at their comment history, if it’s just full of bad takes I decide I don’t need their opinions in my life.
Nah, that man faked cried on his show so regularly, I don’t believe he is capable to really cry, at least on air.
And the 'if real" statement (absolutely not real) is wrong - he wouldn’t cry because of the existential dread that naturally comes with processes like that, he would cry because of his persecution complex “uhuhu they’re so unfair to me” which arguably is worse.
Not because he is a whiny baby, but because all his rage and anger are so impotent.