david-seaman-youtube

There is a huge story that every single mainstream media outlet is ignoring right now. In fact, this story is so massive that it’s the kind of thing that very powerful men in the nation’s capital would kill to keep under wraps. That is why I must say that reporter David Seaman and a number of people on Reddit are American patriots for shining a spotlight on what appears to be something dark and evil going on in the nation’s capital.

Anyone who has combed through WikiLeaks over the past few months knows that Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother Tony are a.) two of the most powerful men int he world — and that is not an understatement, and b.) really freaking weird — and that is an understatement.

Likewise, the Podesta brothers are also friends with powerful (and bizarre) individuals. Take, for instance, James Alefantis, GQ Magazine’s former #49 on its list of Most Powerful People in Washington. Mr. Alefantis also has the distinction of being the owner of Comet Ping Pong, a “family-friendly” joint that features ping-pong, pizza, music and entertainment.

Sounds normal, right? It might be, until you take a look at Mr. Alefantis’ Instagram account (which is now on lockdown), or the “artwork” for some of its events.

james-alefantis

You see, the guy who hosts fundraisers for D.C. power players — some attended by President Obama — has a social media account that is filled with downright freaky (that’s putting it lightly) material.

wikileaks-podesta-alefantis

Ask yourself this question: What kind of person — the former boyfriend of Correct the Record’s David Brock — posts a picture with a man holding a child and then tags it “#chickenlovers”? (i.e., pedophile slang for a homosexual man who is attracted to underage boys.)

cp-chicken-comment

That’s really creepy, right? Especially since it’s not an isolated case. It’s almost the kind of thing that an agent at the Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit — perhaps one referenced in a 2011 issue of Vanity Fair — would want to look into.

Perhaps…Andrew Kline?

vanity-fair-kline

What if Mr. Kline owned a pizza place … right next to Comet Ping Pong? One that was literally 1 minute away?

Wait…you’re saying he does? And its called Besta Pizza? Awesome!

comet-p

Wait a second. Why does Besta Pizza have a logo that is literally an exact duplicate of the “Boy Lover” symbol that law enforcement agencies say is linked to pedophiles? (It’s now apparently in the process of changing its logo.)

What’s going on here? That seems like a mainstream media outlet — perhaps one like Heat Street — should investigate.

bp-logo

Oh, wait. It looks like they already did a piece and just dismissed the whole thing as one big conspiracy theory. Haha! Silly me. I guess the dots … and dots … and dots … and dots … and dots … were all just nothing. Nope. No kids at risk here. Why look into possibly one of the biggest stories of all time when there are so many click-bait pieces to write?

heat-street-pizzagate

In all seriousness though, Mr. Seaman is acting as a guardian angel who is doing his best despite having clipped wings. I do not know what will come of this story, but I know that God will be pleased with this man’s tireless work to protect innocent souls.

Here is a summary that someone on Reddit organized to near-perfection for anyone who is interested in going down this rabbit hole. I warn you now — it is downright terrifying.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

31 comments

  1. This is beyond disgusting. I have to say, I’m shocked that Heat Street dismissed it as a “conspiracy theory.” How is it a theory when the evidence is right in front of you? I’ve also seen articles that say, “Internet Crazies Think that D.C. Pizza Joint is Front for Pedophile Ring.” What is it with the media and protecting pedophiles?

    1. “What is it with the media and protecting pedophiles?”

      One would think that the author of that Heat Street piece would say, “Hmmm. We have mega Clinton donor Jeffrey Epstein who is a convicted sex offender, Anthony Weiner under investigation by the FBI for sending sexual messages to minors, and now all this stuff. Maybe I should look into it.”

      Nope. She mocks the people who are actually doing her job in their spare time. Disgusting.

      If you take any single bit of weirdness, it’s just “Oh, that’s strange.” But it’s not that. There is overwhelming evidence that any sane and honest person would see as red flags. But it’s scary because the the truth may very well be that very intelligent, but very evil individuals figured out that those who control the system can, for all intents and purposes, become above the law.

      Good people are understandably scared about looking into this story because they don’t want billionaires, “D.C. most influential” political power-players, and corrupt law enforcement figures coming after them. Good people don’t want to find themselves dead. I get it. But there comes a point in time where staying silent makes one complicit in the madness.

    2. “One would think that the author of that Heat Street piece would say, “Hmmm. We have mega Clinton donor Jeffrey Epstein who is a convicted sex offender, Anthony Weiner under investigation by the FBI for sending sexual messages to minors, and now all this stuff. Maybe I should look into it.”

      You would think. At least, that’s what journalists USED to do, before the agenda become more important to them than the truth. Nowadays, Wikileaks and people like Mr. Seaman have to do the journalists’ jobs for them, because they won’t touch the story. It’s beyond disgusting how the “reporter” from Heat Street dismissed it as a “conspiracy theory.” The evidence is right in front of her.

      “Good people are understandably scared about looking into this story because they don’t want billionaires, “D.C. most influential” political power-players, and corrupt law enforcement figures coming after them. Good people don’t want to find themselves dead. I get it. But there comes a point in time where staying silent makes one complicit in the madness.”

      I agree. The monsters who do these awful things to children need to be taken off the streets and put behind bars, regardless of how influential and rich they might be. Sadly, the media and politicians routinely cover for them. Look at the Jimmy Savile scandal over in the UK, for instance. The BBC covered for him for years, and the truth about him wasn’t revealed until after he died. People were calling him a pedophile as early as 1978, but no one did anything about it until after he’d died.

      I also remember reading about a pedophile ring in Iowa in the early-to-mid 1980s, one that involved many influential politicians and other elites. There has long been rumored to be a connection between them and the abduction of a boy named Jonny Gosch in 1981 or 1982, but the media has long dismissed it as a “conspiracy theory.”

      More locally, there was the case of Jacob Wetterling. The guy who killed him had molested multiple children in the St. Cloud area throughout the late 1980s, and when the kids told the cops about it, they were ignored.

      Point is, it disgusts me when crimes like this are ignored.

  2. David Seaman will be found dead, shot five times in the back with a bolt action rifle. And Julian Assange will be found dead, shot four times in the head with a pump action shotgun.

    FBI Director Comey and AG Lynch will say these are the worst cases of suicide that they’ve ever seen. And anyone who suggests otherwise will be ridiculed by the MSM as a nutty conspiracy theorist with too much time on his hands.

    1. Re: Iowa, I think you might be remembering the Franklin county Nebraska affair, explored in one book called “The Franklin Cover-Up” another “The Franklin Scandal”

      https://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Cover-up-Satanism-Murder-Nebraska/dp/0963215809

      which looks like it involved upper-level Republicans. It would make a sort of logical symmetry for it to turn out that both parties are mixed up with this stuff. There was another batch of stories swirling around the social circle of former Governor, Senator, and University President David Boren–those with good memories may recall the weird affair of the student who (apparently by accident) blew himself up with a bomb intended for detonation inside the football stadium at O.U. during a game–this kid was linked to this successfully-suppressed scandal. What do you know, Boren was mentor to…George “Slam Dunk” Tenet and was having breakfast with him on the morning of….9/11. Boren is also a member of…Skull and Bones. The OKC bombing case has a simply mind-blowing set of links to 9/11–if you like too-incredible-to-be-true tales, here:

      http://www.911truth.org/april-19-day-of-remembrance-key-to-the-truth-in-oklahoma/

  3. I’m still in the ‘this is a conspiracy’ camp because I don’t want to believe the country I fought for has sunk that low. I hope answers are had, but for the sake of my young family I won’t look. Clintons have too many bodies strangely disappeared around for that. Give me a hoarde of angry al Quaeda any day. Least their deprivation made some sense.

    1. “I’m still in the ‘this is a conspiracy’ camp because I don’t want to believe the country I fought for has sunk that low. I hope answers are had, but for the sake of my young family I won’t look. Clintons have too many bodies strangely disappeared around for that. Give me a hoarde of angry al Quaeda any day. Least their deprivation made some sense.”

      I understand why you would not want to look — and I totally respect that — but I don’t think you should pick any “camp.” Instead, I would just say, “If I were to look into it, then I would go where the evidence takes me.”

      I have gone down the rabbit hole, and I will say this — at a minimum, good investigative reporters should be looking into it. Now. They have abdicated their duty to others, and for that they should be ashamed.

    2. Note how the New York York Times did not link to any of the evidence provided by the allegedly “insane” people. A newspaper does not get to just call people “insane” without giving the other side a fair shake. That is dishonest reporting.

      Here is a much more balanced article. You may recognize the author. Unfortunately, Reddit has now moved to shut down the links. 4chan has done the same.

      Very powerful people are angry. The do not want you to see what the “insane” people have found.

    3. “Here is a much more balanced article. You may recognize the author. Unfortunately, Reddit has now moved to shut down the links. 4chan has done the same.

      Very powerful people are angry. The do not want you to see what the “insane” people have found.”

      I’m not surprised. The mainstream media is doing whatever they can to protect they can to protect their powerful friends. When I tried accessing it, Reddit mentioned that it had been banned and that they “don’t condone witchhunts.” Uh-huh. It’s hardly a “witch hunt” when the evidence is right in front of you.

    4. “I’m not surprised. The mainstream media is doing whatever they can to protect they can to protect their powerful friends. When I tried accessing it, Reddit mentioned that it had been banned and that they “don’t condone witchhunts.” Uh-huh. It’s hardly a “witch hunt” when the evidence is right in front of you.”

      The “witchhunt” line is a total farce. Everything in there was public information that should not be hidden. The images were from a public Instagram account that only went private after all the weird stuff was consolidated into one place.

      Reddit and 4chan are now both trying to hide this information from the public. Why? The reason is because as long as people like us can compare what the NYTs says to the physical evidence then it cannot be called “fake” news. “Fake” news is an Orwellian attempt to keep real news away from you.

      The people who are peddling “fake” news right now are the NYTs and Heat Street, by saying something is debunked and then providing zero evidence to back their claims.

    5. “‘Fake’ news is an Orwellian attempt to keep real news away from you.”

      The people who are peddling “fake” news right now are the NYTs and Heat Street, by saying something is debunked and then providing zero evidence to back their claims.”

      Agreed. I thought it was telling that many of the so-called “fake news” sites that Facebook and Google say they’re going to clamp down on are conservative sites.

      “The ‘witchhunt’ line is a total farce. Everything in there was public information that should not be hidden. The images were from a public Instagram account that only went private after all the weird stuff was consolidated into one place.”

      Exactly. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they wouldn’t make it private or delete entire threads about the subject. Very powerful people are angry that this has become public knowledge.

    1. “Are there any credible sources that can corroborate this?”

      I don’t even know what this question is supposed to mean if the person asking it has actually looking into it.

      1. WikiLeaks = credible. We know for a fact that James Alefantis is friends with John Podesta.
      2. Official Instagram account of James Alefantis before it was set to private = credible.
      3. Official website of Planet Ping Pong with promotional material featuring artists and bands that are into freaky stuff for “all ages” shows beginning at 10:00 p.m. = credible.
      4. YouTube videos taken from inside Planet Ping Pong featuring “artists” who make clearly bizarre comments about being attracted to children = credible.
      5. Washington Post articles that casually mention that Tony Podesta is into “documentary-style” art of naked teenagers = credible.

      What more do you need? All the evidence is right in front of your face. At a minimum, this is something that needs to be investigated by the FBI, but instead we have powerful people trying to sweep it under the rug. We have media organizations ignoring it and platforms like Twitter scrubbing all the evidence away as soon as it goes public. Why?

  4. Interesting fact:
    The reddit you linked to which explains the situation in more detail has now been banned due to “violations of CONTENT POLICY”

    1. “The reddit you linked to which explains the situation in more detail has now been banned due to ‘violations of CONTENT POLICY'”

      Yep. Totally bogus reason, too. People were sharing publicly available Instagram posts, promotional material for shows at Comet Ping Pong, and YouTube videos where “artists” made were pedo jokes. It’s still online. They moved a lot of it to another website but they’re making it harder and harder for people to see the evidence. This is being done on purpose so that the few people who can access the information can be called “conspiracy theorists” who are sharing “fake news.” It’s all a lie. It’s Orwellian. It’s the exact opposite of what they say.

  5. “I don’t even know what this question is supposed to mean if the person asking it has actually looking into it.”

    What I meant was: “Can the claims be verified (or disproven) by independent sources?”

    We’ve got a faction making an incredible claim. Does it stand up to peer review? Can it be said to be confirmation bias-free? Does it make sense? Does the opposition have a compelling case? Any time incredible claims are made, it’s a good question to ask if they’re plausible, esp. when it’s a conspiracy theory. (It’s an unproven-in-court argument of a conspiracy, so, by definition, Seaman and company have a conspiracy theory.)

    “1. WikiLeaks = credible. We know for a fact that James Alefantis is friends with John Podesta.
    2. Official Instagram account of James Alefantis before it was set to private = credible.
    3. Official website of Planet Ping Pong with promotional material featuring artists and bands that are into freaky stuff for “all ages” shows beginning at 10:00 p.m. = credible.
    4. YouTube videos taken from inside Planet Ping Pong featuring “artists” who make clearly bizarre comments about being attracted to children = credible.
    5. Washington Post articles that casually mention that Tony Podesta is into “documentary-style” art of naked teenagers = credible.”

    Really weird and creepy, if all correct, but weird and creepy doesn’t automatically a crime make. Just because some of us like pirate and heist movies doesn’t mean we’re going to become robbers, to use a really bad analogy. (And, yeah, I agree that the above information is really creepy, if true, but how does it prove that these people are criminals?)

    “What more do you need? All the evidence is right in front of your face.”

    How about something concrete, like bank records, eyewitness accounts connecting them to wrongdoing, a ______, any kind of smoking gun. All this is a lot of little things being welded together to make a bigger whole that prove nothing. Do we have any actually proof that there’s a crime ring here and that this place is a center of the operation? By your own admission, the theory is connecting dots, which leaves a lot of room for confirmation bias and therorizing. Is there anything that would hold up in a court of law? That’s what I would need to take the theory seriously.

    “At a minimum, this is something that needs to be investigated by the FBI, but instead we have powerful people trying to sweep it under the rug. We have media organizations ignoring it and platforms like Twitter scrubbing all the evidence away as soon as it goes public. Why?”

    You do realize how you sound here, right? Look, this blog is the first place I’ve heard of this controversy and, to be frankly honest, it didn’t sound like a very credible argument. While typing this up, I did some poking around online, and I don’t really see how the theory makes that much sense. The counterarguments not only seem more rational, but come from more credible sources (a You-Tube account, which anyone can set up and post, is more valid than pro journalists? Seriously?).

    At the end of the day, “Pizzagate” is making a lot of improbable claims, but the only evidence they have is circumstantial stuff that wouldn’t even prove guilt of criminal activity in and of itself and doesn’t even address the important parts. I’m no detective and I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but, unless there’s some actual, concrete evidence that this pizza joint is a front, it’s premature at best to presume guilt, esp. since there’s no evidence that there’s a crime ring in the first place.

    Look, agree with me or not, but can you at least understand why the “Pizzagate” theory sounds like some bizarre web rumor with no real credibility to some people?

    (Also, incidentally, I’m not sure citing your own writing is a good way to put balanced conversation in the mix. There’s a higher chance of confirmation bias content and part of the reason to bring in outside sources is to compare to the already existing claims being presented.)

    1. “How about something concrete, like bank records, eyewitness accounts connecting them to wrongdoing, a ______, any kind of smoking gun. All this is a lot of little things being welded together to make a bigger whole that prove nothing. Do we have any actually proof that there’s a crime ring here and that this place is a center of the operation? By your own admission, the theory is connecting dots, which leaves a lot of room for confirmation bias and therorizing. Is there anything that would hold up in a court of law? That’s what I would need to take the theory seriously.”

      Are you honestly this dense? Have you ever heard of a court case where there is a conviction on circumstantial evidence? It happens all the time. In this case you’re essentially expecting average Americans to come up to you with a video confession of rape or DNA evidence. No crap that’s not going to be available, Weblurker.

      There is a mountain of incredibly troubling stuff here that any normal person would say, “Hey, maybe the FBI should look into this.” But what do you do if the FBI doesn’t want to investigate it because the target is literally considered one of the 50 most powerful men in the country?

      How many “kid-friendly” events have you ever been to where the artist makes pedo jokes, Weblurker? That’s on video. FACT. Do you want me to invent a time machine and transport you to the event?

      How many pizza joints do you go to that feature art by a woman who specializes in rape and pedo “art,” Weblurker? Do you want me to physically hold your hand and take you to the establishment and then do a one-on-one interview with the artist?

      How many “kid-friendly” pizza places have Instagram accounts where there is a naked guy with a slice of pizza over his PENIS, Weblurker?

      How many “kid-friendly” pizza places have Instagram accounts that post pictures of adults playing ping-pong with a child next to the text, “SHUT UP ‘N F*CK MEN,” WebLurker?

      How many “kid-friendly” pizza places have Instagram accounts where a half-naked woman has a slice of pizza over her VAGINA, Weblurker?

      How many “kid-friendly” pizza places have an owner who posts pictures of “torture rooms” or himself on the floor slathered in blood-like goo, Weblurker?

      Again, are you honestly that dense that you can’t see how someone in law enforcement should be investigating this place?

      “Also, incidentally, I’m not sure citing your own writing is a good way to put balanced conversation in the mix. There’s a higher chance of confirmation bias content and part of the reason to bring in outside sources is to compare to the already existing claims being presented.”

      Actually, I can cite my own work because any rational human being can see that I presented both sides of the story and linked to the Pizza Gate images, videos, etc., while The New York Times didn’t do a damn thing. They just said it was debunked over and over again. MINE is real journalism. If you can’t see the difference between the quality of my work and the “quality” of that New York Times piece, then you just might be a moron, naive and ignorant, or deluding yourself.

      “And, yeah, I agree that the above information is really creepy, if true, but how does it prove that these people are criminals?”

      I’m saying that law enforcement needs to look into it. THAT is what I’m saying. I’m saying this is a CLEAR case where someone should launch an investigation. Do not put words into my mouth. I did not convict anyone because I am not a court of law. I’m saying this needs to be investigated. NOW.

  6. “Are you honestly this dense?”

    Look, I didn’t know this even existed until a few hours ago, so I’m still trying to wrap my head around the whole idea and points and counterpoints. And there’s nothing dense about examining any claim on the web, much less a conspiracy theory, with skepticism.

    “Have you ever heard of a court case where there is a conviction on circumstantial evidence. It happens all the time. In this case you’re expecting average Americans to come up to you with video of an actual rape. No crap that’s not going to be available, Weblurker.”

    I didn’t say that, and that’s not a good analogy. Look, the point I was trying to make is that I’d like to see a better case made than has been given. Also, I’ve seen no evidence that the crime ring that “Pizzagate” argues exists, just that the suspects could fit the profile because of XYZ. The former is what needs to be proven for the theory to be true. (I mean, they could investigate and prove that the Comet business is not a family-friendly joint with creepy owners and they need to close down, re-open as a “X”-rated place, or whatever, but that’s not the same thing as proving a trafficking scheme is going on. That’s why I disagree with your analogy.)

    “There is a mountain of incredibly troubling stuff here that any normal person would say, “Hey, maybe the FBI should look into this.””

    Fine, let them investigate. To be totally honest, I think it would probably be best if there was some kind of investigation to prove or debunk the theory once and for all (unless the reason there has been no investigation is because the case has been reviewed already, or something).

    “Actually, I can cite my own work because any rational human being can see that I presented both sides of the story and linked to the Pizza Gate images, videos, etc., while The New York Times didn’t do a damn thing. They just said it was debunked over and over again. MINE is real journalism.”

    I will concede the linking part. Look, for the sake of making where I’m coming from clear (and I’m sorry that there’s no polite way to say this), I don’t really trust you on politics and other social events that much; I’ve seen many articles were I haven’t agreed with the thesis or didn’t think the logic or arguments presented followed. To be fair, association with alt-right people (and the bull that they’ve tried to talk me into) over the years and my own left leanings do create some bias, but still, I’ve come to the conclusion not to take everything I read here at face value.

    So, basically, I’m being presented with a story that sounds improbable from a source that I’m already taking with a grain of salt. Of course, I’m going to want a second opinion from another source outside of your sphere of influence. Establishing multiple sources that agree is a standard for building a credible case in anything.

    “If you can’t see the difference between the quality of my work and the “quality” of that New York Times piece, then you just might be a moron, naive and ignorant, or deluding yourself.”

    Look, buddy, let’s keep things polite here.

    Incidentally, the NYT aren’t the only ones making a case against “Pizzagate” here, either, which suggests there maybe some merit to it.

    “I’m saying that law enforcement needs to look into it. THAT is what I’m saying. I’m saying this is a CLEAR case where someone should launch an investigation. Do not put words into my mouth.”

    Okaaay:

    “..online patriots put their own lives in danger to expose dark D.C. secrets while news giants cower in fear”

    “Good people are understandably scared about looking into this story because they don’t want billionaires, “D.C. most influential” political power-players, and corrupt law enforcement figures coming after them. Good people don’t want to find themselves dead.”

    “Very powerful people are angry. The do not want you to see what the “insane” people have found.”

    What the heck was I supposed to draw from your words, then? It sure doesn’t sound like just a call for an investigation. It sounds like some HYDRA-level plot that needs to be brought to light.

    On top of that, the full explanation of the “Pizzagate” theory is that there’s a child trafficking ring that Comet is a front for, (with the statements/claims/whatever made about the owner and the establishment as alleged evidence of that). That’s the point of the theory, that Comet is involved with trafficking. So, if you believe this theory, it would follow that you believe that the trafficking ring exists. (And if you subscribe to the theory but don’t believe in the trafficking ring, then I’m completely lost as to what you’re arguing for.)

    “I did not convict anyone because I am not a court of law. I’m saying this needs to be investigated. NOW.”

    It’s disingenuous to try and disprove something by taking a figure of speech literally. Obviously you’re not a court of law, but an investigation implies some form of wrongdoing, and your advocating for investigation certainly implies that you believe that there is wrongdoing.

    Look, the theory originated on places like Reddit and 4chan, which are not noted for credibility. While that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be right, it’s not a ringing endorsement. (By all admissions I’ve seen, it started from people looking for a hidden message in an email, which a pretty dubious way to start a case.) The actual reasoning has been focused on one element that’s not even the core of it. Where’s the evidence of the crimes allegedly happening? Is that really an unreasonable question to ask the “Pizzagaters”?

    Okay, look, cards on the table, what do you think an investigation would find? What do you want to see happen? I’m obviously missing the big picture here that you think exists and I’m not even sure what point you’re making anymore.

    1. Look, I didn’t know this even existed until a few hours ago, so I’m still trying to wrap my head around the whole idea and points and counterpoints. And there’s nothing dense about examining any claim on the web, much less a conspiracy theory, with skepticism.

      How convenient that you wanted to “examine” claims, but you didn’t respond to any of my questions: Why would a “kid-friendly” place have Instragram accounts where images “Shut up N F*ck Men, Now!” (with the exclamation point is an erect penis) are found? Why would said “kid-friendly” establishment promote its “all-ages” shows, and then show two dudes sucking off a piece of pizza, Weblurker? You’re going to question my motives and insinuate I’m “raaaaaaaarcist” because I’ve defended Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump from unfair attacks, but then not address my valid points? Telling. And then you have the nerve to ask me to be “polite”? Unreal.

      “I didn’t say that, and that’s not a good analogy. Look, the point I was trying to make is that I’d like to see a better case made than has been given.”

      Actually, it’s a perfect analogy. You just don’t like it. And what you’re doing is a straw man argument. You’re projecting an argument I have never made (i.e., that specific individuals are guilty of [Crime X], when what I AM saying is that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant the FBI looking into this. Again, only someone like you can look at a “kid-friendly” business that uses its social media account to show naked gay men sucking off a pepperoni pizza literally say you haven’t seen a convincing case for law enforcement to move.

      “Also, I’ve seen no evidence that the crime ring that “Pizzagate” argues exists, just that the suspects could fit the profile because of XYZ.”

      That is what I’m saying. It’s screaming to the high heavens. But no one is doing anything. Do you honestly think that if Donald Trump’s inner circle ran the exact same pizza place with the exact same Instagram posts, that the same media that forwarded Hillary Clinton debate questions (Donna Brazille as literally fired from CNN for doing this after WikiLeaks broke), that they wouldn’t be all over it? Again, you are either deluding yourself or incredibly dense. That isn’t me being “impolite” to you — that is the truth. You can take the blinders off if it’s the former, but I don’t know what to tell you if it’s the latter.

      “There is a mountain of incredibly troubling stuff here that any normal person would say, “Hey, maybe the FBI should look into this.””

      But the are NOT investigating. And the establishment next to them is run by someone who — appointed by Bill Clinton, who FOIA records show flew to “Orgy Island” with a convicted sex offender roughly 20 times over the course of years — worked in the human sex-trafficking and sex crimes division of the Department of Justice. Its logo was basically a carbon copy of the symbol that law enforcement officials say is a “tell” for pedos. What more do you need to see to say, “Holy cow…this is troubling.”

      “Look, for the sake of making where I’m coming from clear (and I’m sorry that there’s no polite way to say this), I don’t really trust you on politics and other social events that much; I’ve seen many articles were I haven’t agreed with the thesis or didn’t think the logic or arguments presented followed. To be fair, association with alt-right people (and the bull that they’ve tried to talk me into) over the years and my own left leanings do create some bias, but still, I’ve come to the conclusion not to take everything I read here at face value.

      That’s all you needed to say. Thank you for making it clear to my readers who you really are. Case closed. I have shown myself to be a man of integrity, but yet you would rather trust the same news outlets that refused to due their due diligence with WikiLeaks … you would rather choose to trust the same individuals the Clinton campaign (via WikiLeaks) bragged were “friendly” sources who could be manipulated to do their will … than to give me the benefit of the doubt and have an open mind. Why? Because of my “association” with the alt-right. What is my “association” with the alt-right, WebLurker? Tell me. You can’t, because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You just tell yourself some weird lie about who I am (must be raaaaaaaacist) because I actually defended Steve Bannon from an unfair attack. Ben Shapiro — a Jewish man who worked for him for years — said he wasn’t an anti-Semite. But because non-Jews say Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, you’re the type of guy who will believe them. Actually, that’s kind of what an anti-Semite would do … believing non-Jews over Jews just because. Ironic!

      “So, basically, I’m being presented with a story that sounds improbable from a source that I’m already taking with a grain of salt.”

      The “source” is WikiLeaks, which is credible. The “source” is Comet Ping Pong’s own Insagram accounts. You are mistaking the real sources for the only vehicles who are trying to bring you the information. Get that through your head. Again, that is not me being impolite. It is you being willfully ignorant because you admit that you don’t trust me because of my opinions on public policy and my willingness to defend groups (when appropriate) that you do not like.

      “Of course, I’m going to want a second opinion from another source outside of your sphere of influence.”

      Again, you are exposing yourself as the true ideologue here — not me. And you can’t see how much of a total douchebag you are being for saying these things to me on my blog. Again, I am literally showing you COCK PICTURES TAKEN FROM THE COMET PIZZA INSTAGRAM FEEDS, and you’re telling me you won’t consider the evidence because it didn’t come from the New York Times. You are being the jerk right now — not me.

      “Establishing multiple sources that agree is a standard for building a credible case in anything.”

      No, it isn’t. The evidence is the evidence. If ONE outlet provides credible evidence, but 10,000 scream that it is fake because they simply want it to go away, then the ONE source is still right and the rest are wrong. If I show pictures of naked men on a “kid-friendly” Instagram feed, then that is evidence to show to law enforcement officials. It is credible. And just because the New York Times doesn’t “agree” with the evidence, it has no bearing on its true value. FACT.

      “Look, buddy, let’s keep things polite here.”

      You’re the one being condescending. You might as well call me “chief” or “pal” next. Do not come on my blog and say you don’t trust me because of imaginary connections with the alt-right … do not tell me that you would rather trust media outlets that have shown to the world that they are bought and paid for … over me — a guy who only cares about the truth — and then lecture me on being polite. I am not your buddy. You don’t even use your real name. You are an anonymous guy on the internet who comes on my blog and questions my motives and impugns my character and then wonders why I react the way I do.

      “Incidentally, the NYT aren’t the only ones making a case against “Pizzagate” here, either, which suggests there maybe some merit to it.”

      I work in the media industry. I worked in Washington, D.C. for almost a decade. I know people in the law enforcement community and people who have dedicated their entire life to exposing sex-trafficking rings. I know exactly why The New York Times and The Washington Post and many others are not properly covering this story. WikiLeaks exposed one of the many reasons, which is that powerful people are part of an incestuous community that protects one another — particularly when they agree on the politics. The other is that there is REAL danger in exposing this kind of stuff. That is a fact. Journalists literally die trying to expose high-level corruption. I don’t care if you think that’s hyperbole. It’s the truth.

      “What the heck was I supposed to draw from your words, then? It sure doesn’t sound like just a call for an investigation. It sounds like some HYDRA-level plot that needs to be brought to light.”

      You can mock it as a “Hydra” plot all you want, but there is clear evidence that this establishment and those near it should be investigated by the FBI. You are literally dealing with the most powerful people in the entire country. If the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton after her private email server scandal did not convince you that powerful people often operate above the rule of law, then I have nothing more to say to you on this issue. Go away. Come back and talk about Spider-Man some time because you are not ready to deal with this kind of subject. I understand on many levels, because to admit that I am right would force you to reconsider your entire worldview.

      “Obviously you’re not a court of law, but an investigation implies some form of wrongdoing, and your advocating for investigation certainly implies that you believe that there is wrongdoing.”

      Yes, it is clearly wrong to have a “kid-friendly” restaurant and then post pictures of naked men … pictures of babies with pedo slang … pictures of grown men next to children playing ping-pong with the text “Shut Up N Fuck Men.” That does imply wrongdoing. And when very powerful people have “art” collections of naked teenagers and naked little girls in their own home (The comes from The Washington Post, so that will make you happy), then it is a red flag for law enforcement. When the building next door has a logo that looks EXACTLY like a sign used by pedos … and the OWNER is a guy who investigated sex crimes … that is a red flag.

      I am making you look like a giant fool right now, and you do not even realize it. I feel bad on some level. You probably should just throw in the towel on this one. I do not enjoy doing this to you.

      “Look, the theory originated on places like Reddit and 4chan, which are not noted for credibility.”

      You are again mistaking the vehicle for evidence delivery with the evidence itself. The New York Times and The Washington Post and others refuse to show you the Instagram feeds and evidence from WikiLeaks, etc, so there is no other choice but to get info from places like Reddit or this blog. At this point I think you really don’t get it…

      “While that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be right, it’s not a ringing endorsement. (By all admissions I’ve seen, it started from people looking for a hidden message in an email, which a pretty dubious way to start a case.)”

      WikiLeaks is credible. It doesn’t fabricate evidence. Reporters SHOULD have been coming through WikiLeaks, but they didn’t. That’s because they knew women like Donna Brazille would get exposed in the webs of deceit. No one was “looking” for hidden messages. But when someone talks about “handkerchiefs with pizza-related maps,” that raises suspicions. What the heck is a “handkerchief with a pizza-related map.” That makes no sense, unless you know that it actually is a thing in weird sex communities. Again, a giant red flag. But you choose not to give it credence because you don’t like the people showing it to you. That’s your choice.

      “Okay, look, cards on the table, what do you think an investigation would find?”

      I want an investigation. That’s what I want. If you don’t think Instagram accounts for “kid-friendly” businesses that are littered with pedo jokes, sexualized children, and promotional material for sexual entertainers … then that’s on you. You’re the one who has to look yourself in the mirror each morning. Have fun with that.

    2. “Makes you go hmmmmm”

      Indeed. And yet, for some reason, there are people out there who can’t even give a “Hmmmm.” The mainstream media is going out of its way to either a.) ignore this story, or b.) distort the legitimate concerns of people who have examined the full-spectrum of available evidence.

  7. Douglas, look at this rather odd Tweet regarding the NYTimes. It looks like are saying the Pizzagate story on Twitter was about their bosses story and their boss is friends with Podesta?

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    1. “Douglas, look at this rather odd Tweet regarding the NYTimes.”

      Thanks for sharing, Katica. I have zero doubt that friends of these people are trying to push back online through dummy accounts. It’s a full-court press to push the evidence to the fringes of the internet and then frame normal people who talk about it as conspiracy theorists.

  8. “How convenient that you wanted to “examine” claims, but you didn’t respond to any of my questions…”

    Uh, thought I did. I agree that it sounds really weird and creepy and furthermore conceded to your point of opening a investigation. If that wasn’t a good answer, I’m sorry.

    “You’re going to question my motives and insinuate I’m “raaaaaaaarcist” because I’ve defended Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump from unfair attacks, but then not address my valid points?”

    What the what? I’ve never heard of the first person and have never insinuated anything about you from defending the aforementioned people (and if you have spoken up in said circumstances, good for you). I really don’t appreciate the false accusations, here.

    “Telling. And then you have the nerve to ask me to be “polite”? Unreal.”

    Look, I think some level of courtesy should be mandatory when having discussions with people and am sorry if I failed to do that in this instance.

    “That’s all you needed to say. Thank you for making it clear to my readers who you really are. Case closed.”

    Huh. I’m not so sure, but, like I said, I never claimed to be a brainiac.

    I’m just a guy trying to understand what’s what and make a fair assessment of whatever I find.

    “I have shown myself to be a man of integrity, but yet you would rather trust the same news outlets that refused to due their due diligence with WikiLeaks … you would rather choose to trust the same individuals the Clinton campaign (via WikiLeaks) bragged were “friendly” sources who could be manipulated to do their will … than to give me the benefit of the doubt and have an open mind.”

    For the record, I’m still trying to examine all the information and make sense of it all and what I think of it (I didn’t know about all this two days ago). I’m not wired to do that very quickly, and I will admit to being bias against stuff that sounds on the improbable side.

    “Why? Because of my “association” with the alt-right. What is my “association” with the alt-right, WebLurker? Tell me. You can’t, because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.”

    Okay, stop right there. I never said you were alt-right. What I said was: “To be fair, association with alt-right people (and the bull that they’ve tried to talk me into) over the years and my own left leanings do create some bias…” In retrospect, I should’ve clarified that the alt-right people I was referring to are people I know in person. In fact, I was actually admitting that these associations might be influencing me in discussion and not in a way that would be fair to you. So, quite the opposite of how you read it.

    “You just tell yourself some weird lie about who I am (must be raaaaaaaacist) because I actually defended Steve Bannon from an unfair attack. Ben Shapiro — a Jewish man who worked for him for years — said he wasn’t an anti-Semite. But because non-Jews say Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, you’re the type of guy who will believe them. Actually, that’s kind of what an anti-Semite would do … believing non-Jews over Jews just because. Ironic!”

    Wow. Words fail me. I never heard of those people before and, as I pointed out previously, I never said or thought you were racist, much less made a comment about you on these people. I have no idea what you’re talking about — much less what all this has to do with the price of tea in China — so I’m moving on before I get mad about the insinuations I’m drawing from this non sequitur.

    “No, it isn’t. The evidence is the evidence. If ONE outlet provides credible evidence, but 10,000 scream that it is fake because they simply want it to go away, then the ONE source is still right and the rest are wrong.”

    Okay, I concede on the principle.

    “You’re the one being condescending.”

    That was not my intent and I’m sorry if that’s what happened.

    “You might as well call me “chief” or “pal” next.”

    I was not in the best frame of mind when putting together that last comment (and the moron comment did not help). In retrospect, I should’ve let this one drop and I regret not doing that.

    “Do not come on my blog and say you don’t trust me because of imaginary connections with the alt-right …”

    As mentioned before, I don’t connect you to the alt-right. Any disagreements I’ve had are based solely on what’s been written here (and in fact, most of the ones coming to mind are some of the more trivial stuff). In retrospect, I should’ve worded the “trust” comment a lot differently. I take everything I read online with a grain of salt, so I’m not really treating your blog any differently than I would other stuff.

    “…do not tell me that you would rather trust media outlets that have shown to the world that they are bought and paid for … over me — a guy who only cares about the truth — and then lecture me on being polite.”

    I’m still trying to make sense of what evidence there is that the news media has been compromised, so I will concede bias on that point. I also tend to play devil’s advocate in these situations and don’t make snap decisions on stuff like this.

    “I am not your buddy.”

    In this case, using the label “buddy” was not meant in a friendly way (think a mad person saying: “Knock it off”). I do not appreciate being called a moron (or falsely accused of calling you racist) anymore than you appreciated me saying I didn’t trust everything you wrote here. But, like I said before, I should’ve let it drop, so I’m sorry that I made the comment.

    “You don’t even use your real name. You are an anonymous guy on the internet who comes on my blog and questions my motives and impugns my character and then wonders why I react the way I do.”

    Look, for what it’s worth (which is probably not much right now), while I don’t agree with all your conclusions, I do think you’re sincere about what you write here, and I do respect that.

    “You can mock it as a “Hydra” plot all you want, but there is clear evidence that this establishment and those near it should be investigated by the FBI.”

    While I will admit skepticism, the HYDRA comment was simply the first analogy I could think of, not a comment on the credibility of the case. I also did concede your point on the investigation.

    “Go away. Come back and talk about Spider-Man some time because you are not ready to deal with this kind of subject.”

    Maybe I should do that. I obviously don’t explain myself that well, fail to be tactful, and just get people angry (including myself, in this case) when trying to comment on political stuff. It’s not worth it and contrary to what I was trying to accomplish (get a better understanding of the different points of view on the topic and attempt to examine them critically in an interactive environment).

    “I understand on many levels, because to admit that I am right would force you to reconsider your entire worldview.”

    Not really. When it comes to politics, my opinions boil down to “hear all, trust nothing” and “there are two sides to every story; the truth is usually somewhere in the middle,” and “make the best decision possible,” with the assumption of critical thinking being applied when examining stuff through those lenses. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do here, albeit with little success.

    “I am making you look like a giant fool right now, and you do not even realize it. I feel bad on some level. You probably should just throw in the towel on this one. I do not enjoy doing this to you.”

    I’m one of those people who’s willing to ask dumb questions if it means getting more info and a better understanding (hence, partially why I’ve played devil’s advocate here a lot in the past). Also, while I trust that you’re sincere about not enjoying this, some of the earlier remarks feel really personal and beyond what would be called for. Maybe I was asking for it, but I’m finding it hard to be civil in some of these cases.

    “But you choose not to give it credence because you don’t like the people showing it to you. That’s your choice.”

    I choose to take everything into account first, and, for good or bad, that does include the original source.

    Look, I’m sincerely sorry that I’ve offended you in this discussion. That was never my intent and I apologize for not ending before things escalated as they did.

    If you want to end this conversation, I will do so.

    1. “Uh, thought I did. I agree that it sounds really weird and creepy and furthermore conceded to your point of opening a investigation. If that wasn’t a good answer, I’m sorry.”

      So it’s only “weird” that a “kid-friendly” restaurant would feature Instagram accounts with images that say “Shut Up N F*ck Men Now!” (with a penis as an exclamation point)? That’s just “creepy”? to you when coupled with pedo jokes by their “entertainment” and on social media? Do you see my point? You minimize something that is incredibly serious and worthy of an immediate investigation.

      “What the what? I’ve never heard of the first person and have never insinuated anything about you from defending the aforementioned people (and if you have spoken up in said circumstances, good for you). I really don’t appreciate the false accusations, here.”

      So you read my blog regularly, make comments on the alt-right, but you’ve never heard of Milo? That’s weird. You didn’t catch the big Steve Bannon debate with Cheesedique on Nov. 15? Okay.

      “Okay, stop right there. I never said you were alt-right. What I said was: ‘To be fair, association with alt-right people (and the bull that they’ve tried to talk me into) over the years and my own left leanings do create some bias…” In retrospect, I should’ve clarified that the alt-right people I was referring to are people I know in person. In fact, I was actually admitting that these associations might be influencing me in discussion and not in a way that would be fair to you. So, quite the opposite of how you read it.'”

      If you are aware of your own biases, then it often does not show in your comments.

      “Wow. Words fail me. I never heard of those people before and, as I pointed out previously, I never said or thought you were racist, much less made a comment about you on these people. I have no idea what you’re talking about — much less what all this has to do with the price of tea in China — so I’m moving on before I get mad about the insinuations I’m drawing from this non sequitur.

      Actually, words probably fail everyone who realizes that you came here talking about the alt-right, but now claim you have never heard of Milo Yiannopoulos or Steven Bannon. If you are telling the truth, then it explains a lot…but you should know that it makes you look bad. Milo is essentially the heart and soul of young “alt-right” voters, and Steve Bannon is Donald Trump’s senior adviser. The onus is on you to know that before you comment on the alt-right.

      “I was not in the best frame of mind when putting together that last comment (and the moron comment did not help). In retrospect, I should’ve let this one drop and I regret not doing that.”

      I said you may be a moron, naive, or deluding yourself. The fact that you just admitted that you commented on the “alt-right” without knowing who either Milo or Steve Bannon are shows that you were indeed naive. It’s nice that you admitted to your own biases, but I think they are much deeper than you realize. It’s good to know that you are not a moron, though.

      “I should’ve worded the ‘trust’ comment a lot differently. I take everything I read online with a grain of salt, so I’m not really treating your blog any differently than I would other stuff.”

      On some level that is nice to hear, but on another it’s rather annoying. I spend a lot of my free time responding to readers and forming personal relationships that other websites are simply not going to offer. I actually work in the media, I lived in D.C. for almost ten years, I have intimate knowledge of the conservative movement, and I am willing to share that knowledge with anyone who asks. To treat this blog with a “grain of salt” when I do my best to respond to every single reader is a slap in the face.

      “I’m still trying to make sense of what evidence there is that the news media has been compromised, so I will concede bias on that point.”

      Yep. If you do not understand media bias at this point in time, then I really don’t know what to tell you. Does the fact that every single mainstream media outlet told you Trump was going to get slaughtered on election day make you pause? Do you think for one second that maybe — just maybe — the network that was literally sending Hillary Clinton debate questions is biased? Do you think that NBC News just gives $600,000 contracts to women with no experience on a regular basis, or that maybe — just maybe — it’s buddy-buddy relationship with the Clinton’s played a role?

      “I do not appreciate being called a moron (or falsely accused of calling you racist) anymore than you appreciated me saying I didn’t trust everything you wrote here. But, like I said before, I should’ve let it drop, so I’m sorry that I made the comment.”

      1. I did not call you a moron. 2. You are the one who is talking about the alt-right and my “associations” with it in the very week that every single media outlet was running “white nationalist” stories about the alt-right. If that fact escaped your media radar as well, then again … do your homework before commenting on my blog.

      “Not really. When it comes to politics, my opinions boil down to ‘hear all, trust nothing.'”

      That’s your problem. Instead of just “hearing,” perhaps you should try listening. You often act like you are “hearing” what I write, but in general you’re just waiting until I’m done speaking so you can speak. That’s how it comes across. Also, if I tell you that ISIS should not be executing gay people and Christians, then it would be silly to say, “Hmmm. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.” My suggestion is to just look and listen for truth and arbitrarily starting off with the idea that whatever I tell is a lie that is a specific intellectual distance from the truth.

      “I’ve played devil’s advocate here a lot in the past. Also, while I trust that you’re sincere about not enjoying this, some of the earlier remarks feel really personal and beyond what would be called for. Maybe I was asking for it, but I’m finding it hard to be civil in some of these cases.”

      You can’t tell me that you do not trust me or to take shots at my “spheres of influence” and then expect me to take it with a smile. If you play devil’s advocate for the sake of playing advocate — instead of just trying to have an honest discussion — then do not act surprised when things get too personal for your taste.

      I do not think your intentions are in the wrong place, and I appreciate your apologies. That is why I continue to engage with you. If I thought you were a troll, then I would have booted you long ago.

      With that said, you really need to be careful when you are making political comments if you are not up to speed on what myself and most of my readers would consider basic knowledge (e.g., Steve Bannon is the former head of Breitbart and Donald Trump’s senior adviser).

      Also, if you are going to come on this blog and say you do not see evidence that the media is biased, then you immediately lose credibility. A simple search would reveal to you that Democrat reporters outnumber Republicans 4-to-1. Again, you should know basic facts before you make comments about not seeing proof of bias, etc.

      And, with all that said, Happy Thanksgiving.

  9. So it’s only “weird” that a “kid-friendly” restaurant would feature Instagram accounts with images that say [description of content here, removed for brevity’s sake]. You minimize something that is incredibly serious and worthy of an immediate investigation.”

    Point taken.

    “So you read my blog regularly, make comments on the alt-right, but you’ve never heard of Milo? That’s weird. You didn’t catch the big Steve Bannon debate with Cheesedique on Nov. 15? Okay.”

    I saw the article, but I don’t think I read the comments on that one (at least not that far).

    “If you are aware of your own biases, then it often does not show in your comments.”

    Well, I think that might have partially had to do with devil’s advocacy (which I’m going to be addressing in the future) and a bad habit of shooting from the hip when posting on forums and stuff. I will also concede that introspection and self-examination are not my strong suites.

    “Actually, words probably fail everyone who realizes that you came here talking about the alt-right, but now claim you have never heard of Milo Yiannopoulos or Steven Bannon. If you are telling the truth, then it explains a lot…but you should know that it makes you look bad. Milo is essentially the heart and soul of young “alt-right” voters, and Steve Bannon is Donald Trump’s senior adviser. The onus is on you to know that before you comment on the alt-right.”

    The first and only place I’d heard the term “alt-right” was on a “Star Wars” podcast (the hosts were making an analogy between the different factions of the “Bring Back Legends” movement in the fanbase). From the context, I had thought the term simply referred to the most extreme Conservative ideology, not a specific faction with it’s own players. That was obviously an erroneous assumption. I’ll try to avoid using and arguing with terminology and points I don’t understand that well in the future.

    I may have heard of Bannon, now that I think of it, but only in the context that Trump appointed him to his cabinet and not really anything else (I’m bad with names).

    “I said you may be a moron, naive, or deluding yourself. The fact that you just admitted that you commented on the “alt-right” without knowing who either Milo or Steve Bannon are shows that you were indeed naive. It’s nice that you admitted to your own biases, but I think they are much deeper than you realize.”

    I’ll work on fixing this.

    “It’s good to know that you are not a moron, though.”

    Thank you.

    “On some level that is nice to hear, but on another it’s rather annoying. I spend a lot of my free time responding to readers and forming personal relationships that other websites are simply not going to offer. I actually work in the media, I lived in D.C. for almost ten years, I have intimate knowledge of the conservative movement, and I am willing to share that knowledge with anyone who asks. To treat this blog with a “grain of salt” when I do my best to respond to every single reader is a slap in the face.”

    That’s very commendable. I’ll keep that in mind in the future when considering what you say. No offense was meant and I’m sorry that it happened.

    “Yep. If you do not understand media bias at this point in time, then I really don’t know what to tell you.”

    I do recall learning a bit about the news media in college, including the idea that reporting has shifted into subjectivity over time. I guess my experience with that class and news shows since had lead me to believe that the biases and slants were more benign (for lack of a better word) than what you’ve been describing here.

    “Does the fact that every single mainstream media outlet told you Trump was going to get slaughtered on election day make you pause?”

    Since the final election results were close and Clinton won the popular election, I honestly didn’t think that much of it. I was somewhat surprised, since I personally though Trump showed himself to be unqualified and unsuited for the Oval Office during the campaign, but that’s a different topic.

    (I recall being part of a conversation where a journalist offered an explanation that the media wasn’t to blame, but I can’t remember exactly what they said. Wish I could, since I’d like to compare that theory with the other viewpoints.)

    “Do you think for one second that maybe — just maybe — the network that was literally sending Hillary Clinton debate questions is biased?”

    First I’ve heard of it, but I would agree that that should not have happened. Which specific debate (or debates) are we talking about here?

    “Do you think that NBC News just gives $600,000 contracts to women with no experience on a regular basis, or that maybe — just maybe — it’s buddy-buddy relationship with the Clinton’s played a role?”

    I have heard of NBC taking a more liberal view, but if I heard of this specific event before, I don’t remember it now.

    “1. I did not call you a moron.”

    I see that now.

    “2. You are the one who is talking about the alt-right and my “associations” with it in the very week that every single media outlet was running “white nationalist” stories about the alt-right. If that fact escaped your media radar as well, then again … do your homework before commenting on my blog.”

    I wasn’t connecting you to the alt-right (in fact, while I think you’re farther right than me, my guestimation is that you’re closer to the Conservative norm). Sorry about bringing up a badly-worded, half-baked statement during a time when it would be sensitive.

    “That’s your problem. Instead of just “hearing,” perhaps you should try listening. You often act like you are “hearing” what I write, but in general you’re just waiting until I’m done speaking so you can speak. That’s how it comes across.”

    I’ll try and improve on this.

    “Also, if I tell you that ISIS should not be executing gay people and Christians, then it would be silly to say, ‘Hmmm. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.’”

    Obviously. I do agree that the sayings I brought shouldn’t be applied in all circumstances. You shouldn’t rubber stamp stuff events and problems like that. Sorry if I gave the impression of inflexibility on this.

    “My suggestion is to just look and listen for truth and arbitrarily starting off with the idea that whatever I tell is a lie that is a specific intellectual distance from the truth.”

    I don’t assume you lie, but I do see your point.

    “You can’t tell me that you do not trust me or to take shots at my “spheres of influence” and then expect me to take it with a smile.”

    That part came out wrong. My points were that I had skepticism on the argument you were presenting and I was wanting to compare the two sides on this issue, but yeah, I said it in an offensive way and shouldn’t have written it as it was, if at all. I don’t blame you for being hurt by it.

    “If you play devil’s advocate for the sake of playing advocate — instead of just trying to have an honest discussion — then do not act surprised when things get too personal for your taste.”

    I do try to have an honest discussion (regardless of actual rate of success) and that’s really the only reason I’ve ever played devil’s advocate. However, I’m intending to limit my use of that tool in the future. I think I’ve overused it, much less used it well. Besides, I don’t want to become contrary for its own sake; that’s not the kind of person I want to be.

    “With that said, you really need to be careful when you are making political comments if you are not up to speed on what myself and most of my readers would consider basic knowledge (e.g., Steve Bannon is the former head of Breitbart and Donald Trump’s senior adviser).

    “Also, if you are going to come on this blog and say you do not see evidence that the media is biased, then you immediately lose credibility. A simple search would reveal to you that Democrat reporters outnumber Republicans 4-to-1. Again, you should know basic facts before you make comments about not seeing proof of bias, etc.”

    I’ll try and work on this (and present my opinions respectfully if my research leads me to disagree).

    “And, with all that said, Happy Thanksgiving.”

    Thank you. Same to you and your family (albeit belatedly).

    1. “So it’s only ‘weird’ that a ‘kid-friendly’ restaurant would feature Instagram accounts with images that say [description of content here, removed for brevity’s sake]. You minimize something that is incredibly serious and worthy of an immediate investigation.” Point taken.

      WebLurker, look at your responses and tell me with a straight face that you didn’t complete that sentence for “brevity’s sake.” In fact, if you ONLY included the most essential part of my original point it would be a shorter sentence than what you have in brackets. Haha!

      Here it is for reader: “So it’s only ‘weird’ that a ‘kid-friendly’ restaurant would feature Instagram accounts with images that say ‘Shut Up N F*ck Men Now!'”?

      Anyway, I appreciate your responses. And, for what it’s worth, I must commend you on your patience. Doing this online is tough because you can’t always discern someone’s tone and you can’t see their body language, etc. I think these conversations would be more smoother face-to-face. Oh well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s