Now we can talk about those related to Epstein, Sandusky, Hastert, Saville and the recent busts but we can't talk about Comet, Alefantis, Podesta and any of their possible connections because well, there is nothing to see there. See? So, there aren't any weirdo baby pictures, with suggestive commentary about murder and shit. There isn't any of that really. It's completely normal. See? There aren't any suspicious businesses around either who happen to use pedo logos. Nope. Just a honey pot really. So you see, we shouldn't go there. Nothing to really investigate. No real relevant connections that would suggest an interest in children. And, well, we can't bust the DC ring you see. That one is untouchable and I have to back off now. But look over here, look, look. Nothing to see there....look over here.....there's nothing to seeeee....look over here....super male vitaliteee
view the rest of the comments →
SoSpricyHotDog ago
Agreed... I still check InfoWars.com because they do a pretty good job of riding/aggregating coat tails... but, 15+ years of "See? We broke it here first folks!" and "You heard it here first!" gets a bit tiresome. Like you said, there is never any real follow-through and VERY few actual exclusives that come from IW.
Still a valuable voice to have, but, when lawsuits can scare them into submission so quickly - they seem to tread further and further from the real "fringe" in order to discuss crazy shit like homo frogs, chemtrails and earthquake weapons. If he dumped the same level of faith into these outlandish conspiracies as those based a bit closer to reality, it would be easier to get behind them more often.
V____Z ago
Well, when there is an exclusive, like Joe Biggs, he fires the journalist responsible.
SoSpricyHotDog ago
That's true... but, in AJ's defense, Joe Biggs was canned after he covered that sensationalist "menu" which was heavily rumored to be fake. Oddly enough, I believe this is the exact same menu that the Google search result pages attempt to force us into if you search for "Voat Pizzagate" - adding a bit more suspicion to the "honey pot" aspect of this possible story.
Firing him may have been a bit extreme, I like Mr. Biggs. As well as Mr. Knight (who would do very well if handed the PG baton IMO)
Forgetmenot ago
I never saw anything convincing that debunked the menu. In fact when that menu was discovered everything was blowing up even bigger than the election. I think joe Biggs was fired because that is a narrative they would not be able to control. The menu was almost like a smoking gun.
HomeboyChrisBanned ago
"Never saw anything that debunked the menu" hahahaha it was disinfo to cast a smokescreen around the download page. Are you seriously this dense or just a shill like 75% of the commentors on here?
Forgetmenot ago
No actually instead of name calling please go ahead and debunk it. I am interested in hearing why it wasn't legit? You can't say it was debunked because it was debunked. Do you understand that why that is not a strong or convincing argument? I can further explain but hopefully that is not necessary. I don't pretend to know everything but calling me a shill because I say I have not seen evidence is trying to create a debate based on emotion rather than facts. That will not convince me or anyone here on this board. Secondly, There is no evidence it is legit and there is no evidence it is debunked. that sort of reasoning is what Monsanto uses to promote their genetically modified foods: There is no evidence GMOS are harmful because it is not studied. Is there evidence that glyphosphqte an ingredient in GMOs causes cancers? Of course. Another controversial topic that has a strong lobby spreading misinformation: Vaccines: there is no evidence that vaccines are harmful. This is a true statement. Is there evidence that arsenic and mercury in vaccines are harmful? An overwhelming yes. But you will not hear that narrative spread because the lobby of pharmaceutical companies is very powerful. I am starting to see a trend. Two very powerful lobbyists: the podesta brothers and James alefantis are working very hard to change a narrative. They are using the tried and true method: there is no evidence of a specific and narrow statement. Let's focus on comet ping pong there is no evidence that hilary Clinton is running a child trafficking ring out of comet ping pong. This is a true statement. See the pattern? Now, Is there evidence of trafficking on James alefantis instagram and social media? Some would argue yes. We can use the pic tire of the baby with euros in her mouth as evidence. Is there evidence of of child trafficking code words on john podesta emails some would argue? yes. Multiple mentions of pizza and hotdogs throughout his emails. So focusing on the "no evidence narrative is a a ploy that the media and lobbyist groups use to manipulate a conversation in the direction they want. Its starting to get so easy to see through the lies and trickery.
So please I am happy to hear your point but please reserve the deragotory emotionally charged terms for pedofiles and the cannibals. My advise, you seem to jump to conclusions to quickly, for example trying to label me as a shill for no reason other than saying I never heard anyone adequately debunk it. I myself believe a measured investigative and logical approach will lead to truth. An argument cannot use emotion as a way to prove a point. I think we can all agree on that.