Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
They often say; Don't start out with an apology. Whelp, screw 'em, Imma going to anyway. So my apologies, but I'm going to cross post this between the Fake News and Conspiracy threads, as it really does apply to both for different reasons.
Conspiracy theory(ies)
This covers a current one as well as a few past ones. Seems worth reading to gain some insights in to a couple historical events. However, your mileage will vary based upon how much cross referencing you can perform, on your own accord, being the thinking adult you may well be.
Fake News discernment
We get barraged by cooked-up outrage, labeled as news, which is really propaganda. As adults, we should be able to digest wide ranging view points that have merit and are backed up with good data - on our own accord. The below is an excellent example of what appears believable and seems to be backed up with lots and lots of sources.
Pro Tips: I nullified the hyper-links in the snippet I included (underlined words or phrases) so you can see the "theory" with minimal distraction. The actual article (via URL link) has the links active. BTW: You have to scroll down a little in the article before you get to the headline even. Be aware, there are many links to many sources. Final apology; being a thinking adult can be hard work. So suck it up buttercup.
I like a good article that comes with lots of links to related material. It's like reading the comments sections on your favorite news sites...
A mind-blowing new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today discussing the most terrifying event yet to occur in the “Coronavirus Pandemic War”, says that during yesterday’s telephonic conference held between President Putin and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a “frank” discussion was held between these two leaders involving Prime Minister Johnson’s dire health battle against the coronavirus that was so severe it had his doctors preparing to announce his death—a discussion wherein Prime Minister Johnson revealed that the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS-MI6) could not give him a positive assurance that he wasn’t deliberately infected with the coronavirus as a means to assassinate him, but which he said under British law would have meant his Conservative Party would still remain in power if he had died, as they would have just chosen a new leader—but thereafter saw Prime Minister Johnson expressing his fears to President Putin that this same type of leadership didn’t apply in the United States—fears based on the US having what is known as the 25th Amendment that the sets forth the succession of leadership if President Donald Trump was struck down by death or disease—which would then see Vice President Mike Pence taking power—though if both Trump and Pence were struck down at the same time, all power would go to radical socialist Democrat Party leader US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Fears both President Putin and Prime Minister Johnson further discussed in the grave light of President Trump having announced he was retreating to his nuclear bunker complex at Camp David to meet with his top Joint Chiefs military commanders—and came after it was shockingly revealed that one of President Trump’s personal military aides was infected with the coronavirus—as well as its being discovered that the press secretary to Vice President Pence was infected with the coronavirus, too—a press secretary whose husband is a top aide to President Trump and meets with him daily—but that pale in comparison when noticing that the entire White House is now on “High Alert” because the coronavirus is raging through the ranks of the Secret Service protectors of both President Trump and Vice President Pence—and at this moment sees the Secret Service having 11 active cases, 23 of whom are said to have recovered from the coronavirus, and an additional 60 of them who are said to be self-quarantining...
Freaky stuff. Not sure what to make of it just yet, but it passes the first "smell test" for me.
the timing behind this is really critical. to pull this off, the pieces have to be in the right place and the right time.
the pandemic would be the cover behind all this. then have infected persons get close enough to the staff and secret service. this is where the timing of this is critical.
its very possible that an attempt on boris johnson was made using the virus.
it depends on who the source of the virus was and if this can be tracked. i think he got it from his girlfriend who lives with him. I believe she was sick with cv19. Boris may have been a test to see if it worked.
I think that is fabricated by some right -wing nut job.
fake News - IMHO.
OB1
I said: "...it passes the first "smell test" for me"
Not the smell test.
Big difference. I will investigate further, as my time allows. Whereas you are done considering it. Could be you trust Nancy Pelosi's motives more than I do. Different strokes for different folks...
But I was a bit creeped out over two seemingly unrelated articles in January of last year. You may recall Pelosi was planning a whirl-wind tour with her entire family and several top DNC operatives, enough to start a decent cabinet.
A bus emblazoned with the United States Air Force logo was idling outside the Capitol on Thursday, members of Congress on board, ready to depart for Joint Base Andrews and a waiting military aircraft. Inside, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in her office making final preparations to lead the congressional delegation on a secret visit to American troops in Afghanistan with a stop in Brussels.
Then came word from the White House: President Trump was grounding their plane and killing the trip....
A Georgia man was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of planning a jihad attack on the White House, other high-profile national targets and at least one Jewish site in the nation’s capital.
Hasher Jallal Taheb was taken in after a year-long FBI sting operation that grew out of local authorities’ fears that the 21-year-old Muslim living in Cumming had “become radicalized, changed his name and made plans to travel abroad,” according to a criminal complaint filed Wednesday with a federal court in Atlanta....
Personally, I'm not an automatic fan of coincidences...
WYID-OB1
I said: "...it passes the first "smell test" for me"
Not the smell test.
Big difference. I will investigate further, as my time allows. Whereas you are done considering it. Could be you trust Nancy Pelosi's motives more than I do. Different strokes for different folks...
If U are responding to my comment - I did not intend to be argumentative about your opinion.
I posted My Opinion.
Further research would be valuable - and i encourage that.
No - I trust nazi pelosi no farther than I would trust Schiff or nadler. They are a Group affected by TDS to whom any means is acceptable if it helps them achieve their objective of "Get Trump"!
Thanks for all the many postswhich I have agreed with and respected!
"Well, it’s the job of the media to tell the truth." Right?!?
Apparently not. And when fake news meets truth, they fold like a cheap suit. AG Barr destroys fake narrative after fake narrative, in simple, easy to understand language. Kinda surprised she didn't start bawling by the end.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr appears on CBS Face The Nation earlier today to discuss recent events. CBS’s primary narrative engineer Margaret Brennan was determined to advance several false media reports as the attorney general slapped them down.
Ms. Brennan was determined to stay argumentative and combative and was not happy that AG Bill Barr deconstructed her false talking points. The overall agenda for the media this weekend is to enhance a divisive narrative; and Ms. Brennan has her role to play.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Earlier this morning I went to the Justice Department to speak with Attorney General Bill Barr. In his role as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, he used the full force of the federal government, including agents from the FBI, ATF, Border Patrol, Bureau of Prisons and the Drug Enforcement Administration to assist the National Guard and local police in an effort to end the violence and looting that happened earlier in the week in Washington. Sixteen hundred active-duty troops were also put on standby.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A senior administration official told our CBS’ David Martin, that in a meeting at the White House on Monday morning, the President demanded that ten thousand active-duty troops be ordered into American streets. Is that accurate?
WILLIAM BARR (U.S. Attorney General): No, that’s completely false. That’s completely false. Sunday night–
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President did not demand that?
WILLIAM BARR: No, he did not demand that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What happened?
WILLIAM BARR: I came over on– on Monday morning for a meeting. The night before had been the most violent, as one of the police officials told us, the DC police, it was the most violent day in Washington in thirty years, something that the media has not done a very good job of covering. And there had been a– a riot right along Lafayette Park. I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property federal– at the White House, federal personnel. The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops. But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops as a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources, they should be. I felt, and the Secretary of Defense felt, we had adequate resources and wouldn’t need to use federal troops. But in case we did we wanted them nearby.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So what–
WILLIAM BARR: There was never– the President never asked or suggested that we needed to deploy regular troops at that point. It’s been done from time to time in our history. We try to avoid it and I’m happy that we were able to avoid it on this occasion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were active duty troops put on standby. They were not deployed. The 82nd Airborne was put on standby–
WILLIAM BARR: So the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –but not sent into the streets.
WILLIAM BARR: Some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area. But they were not brought into DC.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So what part– I just want to make sure that we’re precise here, what part of that conversation, as it’s been relayed to CBS and to other news organizations, is false? Did the President not demand active duty troops? Did–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, your question to me just a moment ago was, did he demand them on the streets, did he demand them in DC? No, we had them on standby in case they were needed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Which they were put on standby. They were not deployed.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in our reporting, we were also told that you, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and General Milley, all opposed the idea of actually deploying these active-duty troops onto the streets. Is that accurate?
WILLIAM BARR: I think our position was common, which was that they should only be– be deployed if– as a last resort and that we didn’t think we would need them. Every– I think everyone was on the same page.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the President has the authority to unilaterally send in active-duty troops if the governors oppose it?
WILLIAM BARR: Oh, absolutely. The– under the anti-Insurrection Act, the– the President can use regular troops to suppress rioting. The Confederate– the Confederacy in our country opposed the use of federal troops to restore order and suppress an insurrection. So the federal government sometimes doesn’t listen to governors in certain circumstances.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The last time that this has happened was the L.A. riots in 1992 when the governor of California asked for active-duty troops.
WILLIAM BARR: That’s correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying your understanding and the law, as you interpret it and would support is that the President has the ability to put active-duty troops on American streets, even if governors object?
WILLIAM BARR: It’s happened numerous times. And the answer to that is yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You would support that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it depends on the circumstances. I was involved in the L.A. riots and the Rodney King matter. We tried to use non-military forces. I sent two thousand federal law enforcement officers out there in one day, but it was overwhelming. And the National Guard couldn’t handle it and Governor Pete Wilson asked for federal troops.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And he asked for them.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a key distinction.
WILLIAM BARR: Or he approved the use of federal troops, but those troops were on standby as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because I think a number of people would be surprised to hear and it’s been reported that you opposed sending in active duty troops on principle. You’re saying you would support it?
WILLIAM BARR: As a last resort.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the President, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the President?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort; he didn’t think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it’s a last resort, but it’s, ultimately, the President’s decision. The– the reporting is completely false on this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement?
WILLIAM BARR: I think there’s racism in the United States still but I don’t think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist. I understand the– the distrust, however, of the African-American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. Since the 1960s, I think we’ve been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they’re in sync with our laws and aren’t fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that’s working?
WILLIAM BARR: I think– I think the reform is a difficult task, but I think it is working and progress has been made. I think one of the best examples is the military. The military used to be explicitly racist institution. And now I think it’s in the vanguard of– of bringing the races together and providing equal opportunity. I think law enforcement has been going through the same process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there should be some tweaking of the rules, reduced immunity to go after some of the bad cops?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t think you need to reduce immunity to– to go after the bad cops, because that would result certainly in– in police pulling back. It’s, you know, policing is the toughest job in the country. And I– and I, frankly, think that we have generally the vast, overwhelming majority of police are good people. They’re civic-minded people who believe in serving the public. They do so bravely. They do so righteously.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the bad cops.
WILLIAM BARR: I– I think that there are instances of bad cops. And I think we have to be careful about automatically assuming that the actions of an individual necessarily mean that their organization is rotten. All organizations have people who engage in misconduct, and you sometimes have to be careful as to when you ascribe that to the whole organization and when it really is some errant member who isn’t following the rules.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But doesn’t the opening the pattern-or-practice investigation into a place like Minneapolis where there are questions about the broader issues with policing, it wasn’t just the one officer, wouldn’t that answer that question?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, that’s exactly the reaction that I think has been a problem in the past, which is it just, again, just reacting to this incident by immediately putting the department under investigation doesn’t necessarily result in– in improving the situation. But I would say that in the first instance, the governor has announced an investigation of the police department. The governor, Governor Walz, a Democratic governor, is investigating the police department. The attorney general of– of Minnesota is looking into the police department. We stand ready to act if we think it’s necessary. But I don’t think necessarily starting a– a pattern-or-practice investigation at this stage is warranted. Another thing is we have to look at some of the evidence. I mean, people, you know, the fact is that the criminal justice system at both the state and the federal level moved instantaneously on this. And we moved quickly with our investigation. But we still have to look into what kind of use of force policies are used in that department, what the training has been and things like that. That’s not something we can do overnight.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Coming up after our break, the attorney general tells us about the forcible clearing of Lafayette Park ahead of the President’s visit there on Monday. Also, I want to make sure to note that CBS News stands by our David Martin’s reporting. And we want to clarify here that the Secretary of Defense Esper does oppose the Insurrection Act. You can hear for yourself.
MARK ESPER: I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in one minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re back now with more from Attorney General William Barr.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the events of the week. On Monday, Lafayette Park was cleared of protesters. You’ve spoken about this. The federal agents who were there report up to you. Did you think it was appropriate for them to use smoke bombs, tear gas, pepper balls, projectiles at what appeared to be peaceful protesters?
WILLIAM BARR: They were not peaceful protesters. And that’s one of the big lies that the– the media is– seems to be perpetuating at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Three of my CBS colleagues were there. We talked to them.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not hear warnings. They did not see protesters–
WILLIAM BARR: There were three warnings.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –throwing anything.
WILLIAM BARR: There were three warnings given. But– but let’s get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, okay, there were violent riots in– at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the– behind their bike rack fences. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John’s Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down.
MARGARET BRENNAN: These were things that looters did.
WILLIAM BARR: Not looters, these were– these were the– the violent rioters who were dominated Lafayette Park.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But what I’m asking about–
WILLIAM BARR: They broke into the Treasury Department–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –on Monday when it was a peaceful protest.
WILLIAM BARR: I’m going to– let me– let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?
WILLIAM BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a– a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?
WILLIAM BARR: No. The Park Police on their own on– on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 PM that day. The– the effort was to move the perimeter one block and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 PM. The operation was run by the Park Police.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.
WILLIAM BARR: The Park Police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and a non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond–
MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you’re saying there were projectiles–
WILLIAM BARR: On Monday, yes, there were.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As I’m saying, three of my colleagues were there.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown–
WILLIAM BARR: I was there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –when that happened.
WILLIAM BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you believe that what the Park Police did using tear gas and projectiles was appropriate?
WILLIAM BARR: Here’s– here’s what the media is missing. This was not an operation to respond to that particular crowd. It was an operation to move the perimeter one block.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the methods they used you think were appropriate, is that what you’re saying?
WILLIAM BARR: When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn’t move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John’s Church. That’s when tear gas was used.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There were chemical irritants the Park Police has said–
WILLIAM BARR: No, they were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Pepper spray, you’re saying is what was used–
WILLIAM BARR: Pepper balls. Pepper balls.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and you believe that was appropriate. What I want to show you is what a lot of people at home who were watching this on television saw and their perception of events. I want you to see what the public at home saw.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. But In recent days, our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa and others. A number of state and local governments–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So while the President is saying that he appreciates peaceful protest, around the same time, this crowd–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, six minutes– six minutes difference there I would say.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, around the same time the area is being cleared of what appear to be peaceful protesters using some force. And after the speech is finished, the President then walked out of the White House to the same area where the protesters had been and stands for photo op in front of the church where the protesters had been. These events look very connected to people at home. In an environment where the broader debate is about heavy-handed use of force and law enforcement, was that the right message for Americans to be receiving?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, the message is sometimes communicated by the media. I didn’t see any video being played on the media of what was happening Friday, Saturday, and Sunday–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But– but this confluence of events–
WILLIAM BARR: All I heard– all I heard was comments about how peaceful protesters were. I didn’t hear about the fact that there were hundred and fifty law enforcement officers injured and many taken to the hospital with concussions. So it wasn’t a peaceful protest. We had to get control over Lafayette Park, and we had to do it as soon as we were able to do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you understand how these events appear connected? The timing of this–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it’s the job of the media to tell the truth. They were not connected.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, this is what I’m asking you. Did you know when you gave the green light for these actions to be taken that the President was going to be going in that very same area for a photo op?
WILLIAM BARR: I gave the green light at two o’clock. Obviously, I didn’t know that the President was going to be speaking later that day.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You had no idea?
WILLIAM BARR: No. No, I did not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you see–
WILLIAM BARR: The go ahead was given at two o’clock. And to do it as soon as we were able to do it, to move the perimeter from– from H Street to I Street.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re both Catholic. I know you’re observant. You’re a devout Catholic. Archbishop Gregory of Washington condemned what happened by gassing peaceful protesters.
WILLIAM BARR: There– there was no gas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is– is doing– is what we saw there doing what you meant when you were on that call with governors and you said to dominate the streets?
WILLIAM BARR: Mm-Hm.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what law enforcement is supposed to be taking away from this?
WILLIAM BARR: No, on the contrary. My point to the governors and what I was saying was that it’s important when you’re dealing with civil disturbances to have adequate forces at hand and out.
Apparently not. And when fake news meets truth, they fold like a cheap suit. AG Barr destroys fake narrative after fake narrative, in simple, easy to understand language. Kinda surprised she didn't start bawling by the end.
She was simply owned by Barr and her narratives fell apart at every turn.
Wait! Whut?!? They did run that on all their news shows. Right? Heck, I could have edited is down to a 60 second segment that they can play on all their news channels. Surely they want to report the truth. Right?
<Peter Graves voice over...> In today's episode of Meet the Depressed we discuss today's top news stories That Did Not Happen with our Fake News Propagandist (FNP) and the US Attorney General (AG)...
FNP: According to our unnamed sources, the President said; blah, blah, blah, in a meeting.
AG: I was in that meeting and he did not say that
FNP: Do you think the President has authority to blah, blah, blah?
AG: Yes, absolutely. It has happened many times in our history
FNP: According to our sources on the ground, they tell us the US Military was deployed.
AG: It was not.
FNP: Our sources tell us the protests were peaceful...
AG: They were not
FNP: There were looters at the park...
AG: Not looters, these were violent rioters
FNP: According to three of our reporters on site, they saw blah, blah, blah
AG: I was there. That did not happen.
<Peter Graves voice over...>And those are today's top stories That Did Not Happen.
Wait! Whut?!? They did run that on all their news shows. Right? Heck, I could have edited is down to a 60 second segment that they can play on all their news channels. Surely they want to report the truth. Right?
<Peter Graves voice over...> In today's episode of Meet the Depressed we discuss today's top news stories That Did Not Happen with our Fake News Propagandist (FNP) and the US Attorney General (AG)...
FNP: According to our unnamed sources, the President said; blah, blah, blah, in a meeting.
AG: I was in that meeting and he did not say that
FNP: Do you think the President has authority to blah, blah, blah?
AG: Yes, absolutely. It has happened many times in our history
FNP: According to our sources on the ground, they tell us the US Military was deployed.
AG: It was not.
FNP: Our sources tell us the protests were peaceful...
AG: They were not
FNP: There were looters at the park...
AG: Not looters, these were violent rioters
FNP: According to three of our reporters on site, they saw blah, blah, blah
AG: I was there. That did not happen.
<Peter Graves voice over...>And those are today's top stories That Did Not Happen.
lol, barr really called out the media for their lies by omission over the media's take the on the "peaceful" protestors when they are actually violent.
So much fake news from so many sources. It is easy to get duped or tricked or sucked-in, in so many ways. You have to train your sniffer really well. Look for the potential and/or the obvious signs: The below example is missing most "validation" markings, except one.
It is missing:
Any discernible URL link to authenticate it's source
Where did it come from? A forum, a blog, an app, a digital newspaper
Whom posted it?
No simple way to verify it, as it appears to be a screen capture, JPG only, which was obviously edited to include a highlight box
No date/time stamps
It does include
Appeal to the reader's desire for it to be true. You hope it's true. You want it to be true. You need it to be true. You can't handle the tru...
Alas, if only it was true. Would be spiffy. Huh?
Don't fall for this rot unless it can be verified on multiple paths.
We have abandoned the rule of law in order to coddle these terrorists - and like Chamberlain -Hitler - coddling and appeasing them will only embolden them to further and more violent acts.
Sniffing out news that is probably totally true and AWESOME
So much fake news from so many sources. It is easy to get duped or tricked or sucked-in, in so many ways. You have to train your sniffer really well. Look for the potential and/or the obvious signs: The below example is missing absolutely no "validation" markings, not one.
It includes:
Discernible URL link to authenticate it's source
Where did it come from. A credible source on a verified platform
Whom posted it? Catherine Herridge from CBS
Simple ways to verify it.
Includes date/time stamps
Names, places and charges
However, it implies that:
It is largely bad news to the perps
Will result in perps being separated from Mommy's basement for a long period of time
Qualifying news that ain't fake
