Gunman At DC Pizza Parlor Was 'Investigating' Right-Wing Conspiracy 'Pizzagate' Lie

[hollodero]

(12-05-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this is true at all.

Scientists get research funds to do research.  They do not get paid to favor one side or the other unless they are working for private companies like the oil and gas industry.  

Same with finding cancer causing agents.  There are thousands of studies done each year on all sorts of substances o see if they can be approved for use by the general public.  Scientists get paid the same if they find carcinogens or not.  If what you claimed was true then there would not have been any new medications approved ever because they would all be labeled as causing cancer.

The only climate change scientists with financial motives are the ones hired by the oil and gas industry.  Any government measures to surb global warming would actually HURT the economy.  So they have no financial motive to support global warming.

I don't know about the US, but in the scientific world here there always is some pressure to produce some kind of result that can be published. Which from time to time leads to some study with titles and claims with the word "possible" added that somehow disguise the fact that there's nothing real substantial to see.
A scientist whose research doesn't prove or show anything gets a harder time to recieve fundings the next year, and fundings are needed and money's often tight.

Not that I would say climate change is sensationalism on the part of the scientists, not by a long shot, but when someone claims "well, scientists need to have results" in order to be able to carry on, it's tough to say there's no truth to that at all. The point is not completely moot (although it in no way indicates that climate change is unproven or "looney").

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2016, 09:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about the US, but in the scientific world here there always is some pressure to produce some kind of result that can be published. Which from time to time leads to some study with titles and claims with the word "possible" added that somehow disguise the fact that there's nothing real substantial to see.
A scientist whose research doesn't prove or show anything gets a harder time to recieve fundings the next year, and fundings are needed and money's often tight.

Not that I would say climate change is sensationalism on the part of the scientists, not by a long shot, but when someone claims "well, scientists need to have results" in order to be able to carry on, it's tough to say there's no truth to that at all. The point is not completely moot (although it in no way indicates that climate change is unproven or "looney").

Finding that man does not cause global warming is results just like finding that man does contribute.

Same goes for testing a new drug for dangerous side effects.  "None" is results just like "causes cancer" is.

[hollodero]

(12-05-2016, 09:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Finding that man does not cause global warming is results just like finding that man does contribute.

Oh. Ehm. Right. That is of course true, my latent positivism got in the way of simple logic here. And had I thought that far I probably wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Consider my post as moot. (With the small exception that I feel very few, but still some climate scientists take it too far considering their prognosis of what will happen. Claiming "sea level will rise 2.26 m in 30 years" is somehow suspicious, albeit it looks better in the preamble of a popular science book.)

[JustWinBaby]

fredtoast
The only climate change scientists with financial motives are the ones hired by the oil and gas industry. 

Ginormously false.

There are huge incentives in green industries, as well as govt, for "research" to justify all kinds of taxes,regulation, control etc over fossil fuels.  It's irresponsibly ignorant not to acknowledge the trillion dollar industry climate change has become.

The amount of money going into climate research from the fossil fuel side is like, maybe, 1% of what's coming from govt organizations and other, shall we say, anti-fossil fuel organizations.

It's also a big money machine for universities, and people in climate research (and their entire departments), who's livlihood's depend on it.

Specific grants may not be tied to a "result", but you tend not to get future grants if you aren't "proving" something someone hopes is going to be proven.  And if no one was proving or advancing the climate change agenda, then the $100B spent annually or whatever it is on research would just go away.

[hollodero]

(12-05-2016, 10:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: fredtoast
The only climate change scientists with financial motives are the ones hired by the oil and gas industry. 

Ginormously false.

There are huge incentives in green industries, as well as govt, for "research" to justify all kinds of taxes,regulation, control etc over fossil fuels.  It's irresponsibly ignorant not to acknowledge the trillion dollar industry climate change has become.

The amount of money going into climate research from the fossil fuel side is like, maybe, 1% of what's coming from govt organizations and other, shall we say, anti-fossil fuel organizations.

It's also a big money machine for universities, and people in climate research (and their entire departments), who's livlihood's depend on it.

Specific grants may not be tied to a "result", but you tend not to get future grants if you aren't "proving" something someone hopes is going to be proven.  And if no one was proving or advancing the climate change agenda, then the $100B spent annually or whatever it is on research would just go away.

The money is spent because climate change is by all indications a real threat. Hard to use the funding as an argument against the science behind it, or the scientists behind it. If man-made climate change is real (which it is, I say with evidence behind it), then all funding is justified, all research is justified, hence paying the scientists is justified. They did not "invent" climate change to make money, they make money by researching climate change. They have a job and get paid like everyone else does. Being a doctor also pays off, doesn't mean diseases aren't real.

The other things you describe - true or not, problematic or not - is politics, not science. Science or scientists can't be blamed for policies or what politics makes out of their research.

--- But you know what scientists would do if climate change somehow were proven to not be real? Switch to another field. They would not exactly be jobless, land on the streets and die. They're scientists, they have a profound education, opportunities and don't need a false "agenda" to survive.

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2016, 10:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: fredtoast
The only climate change scientists with financial motives are the ones hired by the oil and gas industry. 

Ginormously false.

There are huge incentives in green industries, as well as govt, for "research" to justify all kinds of taxes,regulation, control etc over fossil fuels.  It's irresponsibly ignorant not to acknowledge the trillion dollar industry climate change has become.

The amount of money going into climate research from the fossil fuel side is like, maybe, 1% of what's coming from govt organizations and other, shall we say, anti-fossil fuel organizations.

It's also a big money machine for universities, and people in climate research (and their entire departments), who's livlihood's depend on it.

Specific grants may not be tied to a "result", but you tend not to get future grants if you aren't "proving" something someone hopes is going to be proven.  And if no one was proving or advancing the climate change agenda, then the $100B spent annually or whatever it is on research would just go away.

None of this theory makes any sense to me.

Politicians know that they only stay in power if people are happy and a good economy is the best way to keep people happy.  These politicians have a huge industry in place that employs a lot of people and provides cheap energy.  So why the hell would they decide to tear down a productive industry and replace it with a less efficient industry that requires taxing the people to pay for more expensive energy that will drag down the entire economy?

I have never seen any logic in the claim that global warming was a hoax created to make money.  They had no need to create a hoax to make money because they already had an industry in place that made money MORE EFFICIENTLY than alternative energy sources.

Green energy will hurt the economy and cause taxes to rise.  People will not like this.  politicians don't create hoaxes to lose money and make citizens mad.  That makes no sense at all.

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 10:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: We might need a "Fake news made a guy do something..." subforum for the next four years.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/gunman-dc-pizza-parlor-was-investigating

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s backrooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general whom President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared stories about another anti-Clinton conspiracy theory involving pedophilia. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at children of Comet Ping Pong employees and patrons. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social-media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.

I KNOW what happened here. Once the child-sex ring was reported in social media, Clinton et al just moved the operation to another parlor. The fact that the gunman and police found nothing proves this.

Now everyone will believe this was just more false news. Just like whitewatergate and travelgate and fostergate and Benghazigate, liberal media have let Clinton off the hook--again! 

But now we have a president elect and national security advisor who see through the BS. This will not be the last we have heard about this odious branch of the Clinton business machine.

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 10:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Specific grants may not be tied to a "result", but you tend not to get future grants if you aren't "proving" something someone hopes is going to be proven.  And if no one was proving or advancing the climate change agenda, then the $100B spent annually or whatever it is on research would just go away.

I think JustWin has a point here.

E.g., If no one were proving or advancing the cancer research agenda, then public and private funding would certainly just go away.  Does anyone really dispute that?

Certainly the same for deep space and deep ocean research.

So why not for Climate Change?  

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 11:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never seen any logic in the claim that global warming was a hoax created to make money.  They had no need to create a hoax to make money because they already had an industry in place that made money MORE EFFICIENTLY than alternative energy sources.

Green energy will hurt the economy and cause taxes to rise.  People will not like this.  politicians don't create hoaxes to lose money and make citizens mad.  That makes no sense at all.

 
The CLAIM that global warming was a hoax created to make money certainly makes sense once you 1) grant that there are businesses who don't want more environmental regulation imposed upon them, and 2) the voters/politicians they address see profit as the main mover of all people and organizations and are unaware of the motivating values and priorities "research culture" or just find them uninteresting and unworthy of understanding.

So if you are shilling for the extraction industries, you strive to represent scientists and science institutions as out to make a buck just like businessmen and businesses. The only difference is that instead of producing an honest service or product to meet a market demand, climate scientists want the taxpayers to fund them and elite liberal politicians make it happen.

To that science illiterate segment of voters, the "real" motivation behind all these weird scientific claims and graphs becomes clear once they understand how scientists "make money" from taxpayers by claiming that global warming is a serious threat.

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 09:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about the US, but in the scientific world here there always is some pressure to produce some kind of result that can be published. Which from time to time leads to some study with titles and claims with the word "possible" added that somehow disguise the fact that there's nothing real substantial to see.
A scientist whose research doesn't prove or show anything gets a harder time to recieve fundings the next year, and fundings are needed and money's often tight.

Not that I would say climate change is sensationalism on the part of the scientists, not by a long shot, but when someone claims "well, scientists need to have results" in order to be able to carry on, it's tough to say there's no truth to that at all. The point is not completely moot (although it in no way indicates that climate change is unproven or "looney").

Hollo, in US universities, research scientists who want funding beyond their salaries and departmental budgets have to write proposals for it addressed to some body within their university or to some entity outside it, such as the government or a funding foundation. That is usually a rigorous process. The proposer has to show how his work intersects with and extends existing research in some field, and what theoretical advances or practical applications are expected to result from it.

Usually, the proposal will be in competition with other proposals before independent boards who ultimately decide what is funded.  Under this system, it's not easy to get other people to pay for your research unless it's clear the results will likely pan out. This works well to the degree the profit motive is excluded.  "Insubstantial" research has never really been a problem, though fiscal conservatives would have you believe otherwise.

However, the system has broken down somewhat over the last 40 years, as universities are defunded year after year and made reliant on corporate or Defense Dept. funding. That funding usually has strings attached. It has the effect of turning researchers away from basic research and towards applied. E.g., With an initial gift or donation or grant, a corporation can turn programs and departments in the direction it desires, thus socializing the cost of its product research. Worse still, in many cases corporations can patent the results of tax-payer funded research.

That's the real story, not scientists scamming taxpayers for Climate Hoax research.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(12-06-2016, 02:58 AM)Dill Wrote: But now we have a president elect and national security advisor who see through the BS. This will not be the last we have heard about this odious branch of the Clinton business machine.

Are you sure about that?  Trump and Clinton both have ties to Jeffrey Epstein after all, the man who was convicted of child sex-trafficking but let off the hook with a 13 month "prison term" in which he was allowed to travel for "work related purposes."  We're talking about the co-founder of the Clinton Foundation who turned out to be one of the biggest slime balls on the face of the Earth - a political gold mine!  So why then, didn't Trump use it to his advantage during the political campaign?  The answer is that he has known ties to Epstein himself.  Just how deep to they run?  No one knows, but he has verifiably visited that man's private island in the past.

Anyhow, there really is a lot of circumstantial evidence out there to suggest that something weird was going on with the pizza parties.  This case looks a lot like the Lawrence King incidents in Omaha Nebraska(King was charged for financial fraud rather than running a sicko ring, despite evidence.  Sandusky was also named by an investigator way back when this happened).  A documentary known as Conspiracy of Silence, the Dutroux case in Belgium, and the Seville case in the UK also have some vague similarities.  I'd urge everyone to keep an open mind about it, and to try to look at both sides of the argument before jumping to any conclusions.

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 05:15 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Are you sure about that?  Trump and Clinton both have ties to Jeffrey Epstein after all, the man who was convicted of child sex-trafficking but let off the hook with a 13 month "prison term" in which he was allowed to travel for "work related purposes."  We're talking about the co-founder of the Clinton Foundation who turned out to be one of the biggest slime balls on the face of the Earth - a political gold mine!  So why then, didn't Trump use it to his advantage during the political campaign?  The answer is that he has known ties to Epstein himself.  Just how deep to they run?  No one knows, but he has verifiably visited that man's private island in the past.

Anyhow, there really is a lot of circumstantial evidence out there to suggest that something weird was going on with the pizza parties.  This case looks a lot like the Lawrence King incidents in Omaha Nebraska(King was charged for financial fraud rather than running a sicko ring, despite evidence.  Sandusky was also named by an investigator way back when this happened).  A documentary known as Conspiracy of Silence, the Dutroux case in Belgium, and the Seville case in the UK also have some vague similarities.  I'd urge everyone to keep an open mind about it, and to try to look at both sides of the argument before jumping to any conclusions.

Clinton and Sandusky--that's all I need to know!

And to think, she won the popular vote.

[tigerseye]

Hope that this is investigated to the furthest extent of the law. There definitely appears to be smoke here and this can not be ignored.


As far as the popular vote is concerned who knows who actually won the popular vote once you subtract the ILLEGAL votes  which are ILLEGAL.(which unbelievably Obama basically gave the go ahead for= cheating and against the law.)

HRC votes - ILLEGAL votes = HRC's actual votes

How many ILLEGAL votes were there? Can't say you won the popular vote due to the head Dems actions of telling ILLEGALS to vote.

How many ILLEGAL votes were there?

1,2 crunch 3
3
The world may never know.       

Could have been 10 million? Who knows? Not right to cheat and attempt to circumvent our election process then try to benefit from the cheating by saying you won the popular vote.

[hollodero]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Hope that this is investigated to the furthest extent of the law. There definitely appears to be smoke here and this can not be ignored.


As far as the popular vote is concerned who knows who actually won the popular vote once you subtract the ILLEGAL votes  which are ILLEGAL.(which unbelievably Obama basically gave the go ahead for= cheating and against the law.)

HRC votes - ILLEGAL votes = HRC's actual votes

How many ILLEGAL votes were there? Can't say you won the popular vote due to the head Dems actions of telling ILLEGALS to vote.

How many ILLEGAL votes were there?

1,2 crunch 3
3
The world may never know.       

Could have been 10 million? Who knows? Not right to cheat and attempt to circumvent our election process then try to benefit from the cheating by saying you won the popular vote.

PLEASE explain to me how "illegal votes" can even occur. As far as I know, only registered voters can vote...? How can "illegals" get registered?
Do you have ANY proof for ANY of these claims?

[Benton]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Hope that this is investigated to the furthest extent of the law. There definitely appears to be smoke here and this can not be ignored.


As far as the popular vote is concerned who knows who actually won the popular vote once you subtract the ILLEGAL votes  which are ILLEGAL.(which unbelievably Obama basically gave the go ahead for= cheating and against the law.)

HRC votes - ILLEGAL votes = HRC's actual votes

How many ILLEGAL votes were there? Can't say you won the popular vote due to the head Dems actions of telling ILLEGALS to vote.

How many ILLEGAL votes were there?

1,2 crunch 3
3
The world may never know.       

Could have been 10 million? Who knows? Not right to cheat and attempt to circumvent our election process then try to benefit from the cheating by saying you won the popular vote.

Just pointing out, illegal votes are — according to everyone except Trump — not that common.

That aside, I don't recall anyone telling illegals (I'm assuming you mean illegal aliens) to vote... which is most likely because non-residents can't vote. But implying that up to 10  million illegal aliens voted is an insanely high number. For that to be true, you'd have had to had collusion on the part of Republican poll workers, Democratic party poll workers, hundreds of election officials and probably more people. Basically, the entire system would have had to take part to keep The Donald from The White House. Which, as much as he would like that to be true, the odds were stacked in his favor, not against him.

[BmorePat87]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Hope that this is investigated to the furthest extent of the law. There definitely appears to be smoke here and this can not be ignored.


As far as the popular vote is concerned who knows who actually won the popular vote once you subtract the ILLEGAL votes  which are ILLEGAL.(which unbelievably Obama basically gave the go ahead for= cheating and against the law.)

HRC votes - ILLEGAL votes = HRC's actual votes

How many ILLEGAL votes were there? Can't say you won the popular vote due to the head Dems actions of telling ILLEGALS to vote.

How many ILLEGAL votes were there?

1,2 crunch 3
3
The world may never know.       

Could have been 10 million? Who knows? Not right to cheat and attempt to circumvent our election process then try to benefit from the cheating by saying you won the popular vote.

For starters, Obama never said that. Fox cut a video to make it sound like he did.  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-business-deceptively-edits-obama-interview-to-falsely-claim-he-told-illegal-immigrants-to-vote/

That aside, there's 11 million illegal immigrants and roughly 2.5m are minors, so you're talking about 8.5-9m adults who could have voted. So having over 100% voter turnout is incredible. Having even the alleged 3m (with no basis), or 33% turnout, is incredible for a few reasons. Either they all registered to vote or they all stole someone else's vote. Where are the people who tried to vote but were told someone else already voted? 

Also, I don't think the police have a case in pizzagate. The only evidence is that r/the_donald thinks "pizza" means "pedophilia" and ping pong paddles are a symbol for pedophilia. So... 


Yea, evidence to support stupid claims is important. 

[6andcounting]

Let's get this thread back on track.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2016, 05:15 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote:   We're talking about the co-founder of the Clinton Foundation who turned out to be one of the biggest slime balls on the face of the Earth - a political gold mine!  So why then, didn't Trump use it to his advantage during the political campaign?

Probably because it was not true.  Epstein was not a co-founder of the Clinton Foundation.

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 PM)tigerseye Wrote:  

Could have been 10 million? Who knows? Not right to cheat and attempt to circumvent our election process then try to benefit from the cheating by saying you won the popular vote.

Breitbart says 3 million. I trust them because they have a reputation for presenting the news that their readers want, not imposing "elite" news from Washington fact-checkers.

Trump would not be tweeting 3 million if that weren't the correct figure.

There is massive evidence of this but the liberal press is hiding it. 

Thank god Trump can go around them with his tweets.

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 03:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: PLEASE explain to me how "illegal votes" can even occur. As far as I know, only registered voters can vote...? How can "illegals" get registered?
Do you have ANY proof for ANY of these claims?

Of course there is proof for these claims, Hollo.  Once you put the claims online, then they become proof.

https://twitter.com/JumpVote/status/796753990935609344
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/27/donald-trump-won-popular-vote-deduct-illegal-voters/

Also, the liberal press is covering it up by refusing to report the fraud. What more proof do you need?