It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: RickinVa
Well I would think they were a little more trustworthy if they didn't claim that Hillary was literally a demon because unnamed sources told them. I would think they were a little more trustworthy if they didn't claim that Sandy Hook was all fake, or that a tornado in Oklahoma was generated by the government, or that the government is putting stuff in juice boxes to make kids all gay for population control, among many, many other insane claims.
No, I don't think someone like that is very trustworthy.
originally posted by: RickinVa
Sandy Hook and juice boxes have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Nice attempt at deflection.
So anonymous sources are okay if you trust the journalists?
Well you are allowed your opinion, and I have mine.
A lack of trust in the mainstream shouldn't translate to undue trust in the fringe. That's complete non sequitur but it's exactly what is happening. How long will Infowars continue to get an unreasonable benefit of the doubt from some people despite their horrendous track record?
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: underwerks
Why would they want to play favor with the lesser 1/2 of the people who voted? Not like we had 320,000,000 people vote and they are trying to curry favor with them.
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
When were the "Russian hacker" sources ever named or proven?
I must have missed that.
originally posted by: flatbush71
Well, I do know one thing for a fact.
As most of you know, there are thousands of feral cats in the middle-east.
Anytime HRC was there, you could NOT see a cat anywhere in the open.
This was frequently mentioned in written reports and car to car radio traffic.
SOURCE: I had eyes on
Damnest thing I ever seen.
Had you guys not brought up that sulfur statement, I would have never remembered it.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seasonal
How long will Infowars continue to get an unreasonable benefit of the doubt from some people despite their horrendous track record?