reply to post by enigmania
Our little discussion here is starting to veer way off course.
I'll bring up my basic points again, and if you want, we can begin to discuss those. But as it stands now, we're venturing into far too many "what
ifs" to even have a sensible debate.
My basic points are:
A lot of what he says has false information
He censors out topics like the Vatican
He has connections with people who I don't think a "truth seeker" should, if he's genuine
We can argue why this or why that until the internet gets censored, but we're never really going to accomplish anything.
So those are my basic points about him. The disinformation agent thing is my opinion.
My points, however, are facts. He does have these connections. He does have false information in his news stories. And he does leave out topics like
So, rather than addressing each other's opinions, let's address the information. I think we'll get a little further that way.