Post by blockbusted on Jul 16, 2017 19:30:07 GMT
For example, you say Wall Street bankers who own the 6 companies that control most media would not attempt to influence an election using their media assets--yet, we have a perfect example of that--the media saying Trump was molesting dozens of women. They talked about it nonstop-then once it failed to work-dropped it.
Do you really think they did that because they were seeking to inform the public and champion the moral high ground?
I can only assume you had your head up your ass during this period and never heard the term "fake news."
Fake news, fake movies. It's propaganda.
You may be the only person in the world who thinks Wall Street bankers are your friends.
You never heard that George Carlin skit the Big Club? Where he says:
"And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street."
Their criminal friends on Wall Street.
I guess you think Carlin was being mean to suggest bankers were not honest.
You can keep suggesting my theory is wrong-but the best way to do that is by proving the points are invalid. I don't have to resort to trite namecalling because I can articulate my views in a coherent fashion.
You do not seem to possess that capacity.
If warmonger Clinton was in office as was expected, Wonder Woman and Atomic Blonde would be coming out right around the time she was thinking about dropping those mini nukes that Obama signed off on last year.
And if you do not believe that, just look up her transcripts of Goldman Sachs meetings where she discussed the merits of dropping nukes on Iran as opposed to an invasion.
You just do not seem to be an informed person, and your lack of education makes you short tempered and frustrated.
It cannot be easy to disagree with something and be unable to express a coherent argument that supports that viewpoint.
I am not laughing at you-I am sincerely sympathetic.
Good luck finding the light.

