If New York Times is promoting it I instinctively want to do the opposite because (((they))) are part of the problem their record shows they are not on the side of the working person.
I would seriously look more into this topic before forming an opinion. This ad would not of been allowed to of been published if it didn't fit their narrative somehow (their history proves this.)
That sensation is oft used against populations; you would be wise to simply continue to be aware of it, and be critical and open minded. You seem to be doing well on those fronts.
If New York Times is promoting it I instinctively want to do the opposite because (((they))) are part of the problem their record shows they are not on the side of the working person.
In what possible universe are ISPs (who are usually monopolies) having the right to sell your personal information beneficial to the working class? Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but internet access is basically required in this day and age to function in society.
In what universe do you take anything the New York Times publishes at face value?
If I do that might as well form my opinions from daytime talkshows late night comedians and CNN
I would seriously have second doubts. What I am saying is they are not a free press they are a globalist propaganda organization and any intelligent person would look deeper into the subject from more credible sources than New York Times. There are hidden clauses and agendas everywhere so a wise person does not form opinions solely on emotions or at face value.
Are you actually saying that you would reject the assumption that humans need oxygen to live if it was published in the New York Times?
So basically, you are telling me you lack the rational capacity to critically read and assess news sources and separate bias from fact in any media that you read?
Lets be honest here: every single news source is biased and has an agenda. Bias that you agree with is still bias, and compromises your understanding of reality if you are unable to critically interpret it.
view the rest of the comments →
Loserfour ago
If New York Times is promoting it I instinctively want to do the opposite because (((they))) are part of the problem their record shows they are not on the side of the working person. I would seriously look more into this topic before forming an opinion. This ad would not of been allowed to of been published if it didn't fit their narrative somehow (their history proves this.)
Milo_Carlin ago
That sensation is oft used against populations; you would be wise to simply continue to be aware of it, and be critical and open minded. You seem to be doing well on those fronts.
BigDaddy69 ago
In what possible universe are ISPs (who are usually monopolies) having the right to sell your personal information beneficial to the working class? Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but internet access is basically required in this day and age to function in society.
Loserfour ago
In what universe do you take anything the New York Times publishes at face value? If I do that might as well form my opinions from daytime talkshows late night comedians and CNN
BigDaddy69 ago
If the New York Times claimed that "oxygen is required to continue living", would you accept that at face value?
Loserfour ago
I would seriously have second doubts. What I am saying is they are not a free press they are a globalist propaganda organization and any intelligent person would look deeper into the subject from more credible sources than New York Times. There are hidden clauses and agendas everywhere so a wise person does not form opinions solely on emotions or at face value.
BigDaddy69 ago
Are you actually saying that you would reject the assumption that humans need oxygen to live if it was published in the New York Times?
So basically, you are telling me you lack the rational capacity to critically read and assess news sources and separate bias from fact in any media that you read?
Lets be honest here: every single news source is biased and has an agenda. Bias that you agree with is still bias, and compromises your understanding of reality if you are unable to critically interpret it.
Loserfour ago
You work for the Jew York Times shill? Listen Abraham interpret it however you want.
BigDaddy69 ago
Name one news source that isn't biased and/or compromised by our Zionist overlords.