Seth Rich's dad confirmed son was Wikileaker

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Justoneman

What part of ante's debunking is false?

Oh pretty much any of it is partisan. I will challenge him if the folks don't when it happens.

I basically consider it propaganda.

I have little faith in that one, or any of his friends on ATS, being fair minded very often. The truth is not their best subject. Ficional story's I would surely give Ante an award. Mental gymnastic Gold medals galore for that one. I just can't use that as a source of my decision making. I smell BS and I call BS. I will compliment Ante when he is right, which is not enough for me.

a reply to: face23785

Hypothesis, first. Theory now... I think it is now safe to call it that, but agree it started unproven. Theories don't mean 'law' and can be challenged. The top "LEO"s of the law of this land in this case, are giving the crooks hope they will walk if they are deemed 'too big' to be found guilty.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
ADVICE TO NEW ATS MEMBERS:

When a thread has 54 flags and only 16 replies, you know we're onto something.

Cheers, always remember these threads, they don't come around that often.

Hillary authorised the hit - I've said it from the beginning, this is my opinion based upon all information available coupled with Hillarys historical conduct.

That is horrible advice. Are you really trying to encourage new members to be completely illogical?

The thread has many flags because many people would love for it to be true, but just by looking at the source you can tell it's a garbage claim. No proof presented. Just confirmation bias.

My advice for new members would be to think for yourselves and don't believe everything that fits your biases.

You seem stressed - my advice would be to take many different pharmaceuticals and revert via post in 30mins if you are still feeling butthurt.

Fair enough?

Another great example for new members to see.

If you cannot make an intelligent response, just revert to the same tactics as a high school douchebag.

You're really setting a great example for the membership at ATS, Sublime. If all else fails, let your stupidity and emotions take the wheel.

originally posted by: ExVoto
a reply to: kaylaluv

I'd be interested in who you THINK is reliable then?

Here’s when I tend to sit up and take notice — when multiple sources from both sides of the aisle confirm something.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


Agreed

Unsure of this source, would like to see it elsewhere. However, if true, this represents a major paradigm shift for both Trump and the Clintons. Not only would Clinton be in serious legal trouble, but the entire case against Trump and the BS Russia "hacking" excuse 'narrative' goes out the window.

(it is already out the window in my opinion, but others still cling)

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


Agreed

Unsure of this source, would like to see it elsewhere. However, if true, this represents a major paradigm shift for both Trump and the Clintons. Not only would Clinton be in serious legal trouble, but the entire case against Trump and the BS Russia "hacking" excuse 'narrative' goes out the window.

(it is already out the window in my opinion, but others still cling)

There is one thing neat about clinging to the truth, you can put your head down on your pillow at night and sleep easier. When you are clinging to lies is when you have trouble sleeping.

Ignorance is still bliss.

a reply to: Justoneman

What part of ante's post is partisan?

Is he lying when he points out that Butowsky has close ties to Breitbart, the same site that pushed a lot of this Seth Rich stuff early on and got called out for lying?

Is he lying when he points out that there is no indication Butowsky has any actual connection to the Riches?

Is he lying when he mentions that even if the quote from Rich's father is legitimate it says nothing about him being the hacker?

Tell us what part is partisan and not true. I mean you must have some good evidence to be arguing against this so vehemently.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: face23785

Hypothesis, first. Theory now... I think it is now safe to call it that, but agree it started unproven. Theories don't mean 'law' and can be challenged. The top "LEO"s of the law of this land in this case, are giving the crooks hope they will walk if they are deemed 'too big' to be found guilty.

This is so off topic but it's a pet peeve of mine. You've still got it confused. It's correct that theories don't mean law, but that's not because laws are more proven. It doesn't go hypotheses -> theory -> law. Laws are challenged as well and can be proven incorrect. Newton's law of universal gravitation was supplanted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is more accurate. Newton's law is still used in a lot of cases because it's accurate enough for most earthly applications and the math is simpler, but it's actually inaccurate and this can be proven through experiments. The inaccuracy just doesn't present a problem unless your margin of error is extremely small.

Scientific laws and theories are both supposed to be fully proven. Neither is more correct than the other, and both can be proven incorrect by new discoveries.

a reply to: introvert

ADVICE TO NEW ATS MEMBERS

I'm full of sh!t - refer to others for stuff.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yeah, so Wikipedia has known to be edited to skew to different agendas, so what! Poor argument.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Uhh, no - I’m talking about the source of the information in the thread and how unreliable it is. Totally on topic.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: kaylaluv

No, but you are trying to derail the thread and cast dispersions on others than the DNC, who are responsible for Seth Rich's death. Just what a Russian Bot would do.

I suppose you would have proof of that claim, right?

Ahh, who am I kidding? We both know you have no proof and you are full of it.

Why do you try to push your beliefs or desires as fact?

a reply to: Justoneman

His name was seth rich. and He is a Hero. Never forget.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
ADVICE TO NEW ATS MEMBERS:

When a thread has 54 flags and only 16 replies, you know we're onto something.

.

Advice to new ats members:
Threads that have 54 flags and 16 replies are for the most part alt-right fan fiction threads
You can find tens of threads with even more stars and fewer posts that turned out to be nothing burgers.
It's not that hard to prove.
Use the search engine and type alt-right buzzwords such as "deep state" , "tick-tock", "secret society" , "Podesta", "Awan brothers" etc.

This requires a neutral mind to understand at minimum. Some people are so far left the rest of us just appear right to the leftist. The dems have turned so far left I don't recognize the ones from the 'reformed' 70's even. It makes it easy for the R's to win in certain states. I suspect the R's having so many RINO's is the only way the Deep state can keep up the lies and not all be in the Graybar motel near Leavenworth KS.

im way left, but on ATS people think im way right lol.
imagine that? The trick is I dont follow. I do not follow. I dont follow party lines. I dont like sound bites. I dont like lies. I dont like bs. Hillary can go crawl in a hole and die with the rest of the scum ruining our country.


Anyway.

Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC.

There is no way around this.

We know he is the leaker.

That is not a right wing talking point its just what happened. Seth Rich was on the left..... Just like me.

Grow up and face the hard facts everyone.

These are gangsters, money launderers, murderers, thieves, and depraved individuals. They won't rat themselves out. There is dirt on most of them.
People will have to get a lot more tough on "gangs" if we want to see the light at the end of all this.

I personally get it. I don't want my family threatened ever again, but something has to change.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Justoneman

What part of ante's post is partisan?

Is he lying when he points out that Butowsky has close ties to Breitbart, the same site that pushed a lot of this Seth Rich stuff early on and got called out for lying?

Is he lying when he points out that there is no indication Butowsky has any actual connection to the Riches?


Is he lying when he mentions that even if the quote from Rich's father is legitimate it says nothing about him being the hacker?

Tell us what part is partisan and not true. I mean you must have some good evidence to be arguing against this so vehemently.

If we remember correctly the data looked to have been taken locally via USB connection. No hacking involved to that end.

The ignorance is NOT bliss. I cannot believe the level of "go back to bed" in everyone's brains.

Salon.com leak was local