Opinion Be honest, how many of you believed Pizzagate?

Did you believe in Pizzagate?


  • Total voters
    132
Ham (or ham-ish meats) on a pizza is fine; pineapple on a pizza is an abomination (and, yes, so-called "Hawaiian pizza" gets its name because of the pineapple but it was invented in Canada).

I apologize on behalf of Canada for that one.
 
Eddie Bravo would believe basically anything if you told him excitedly and threw in some plausible sounding bullshit and mentioned aliens or some CT lingo
Up to and including flat Earth.
 
And fuck, "ham on pizza" (which you just said) is literally the kind of thing that nutters were talking about being code for child sex slaves.

Earlier in this thread, someone talked about the great mystery of the meaning of Hawaiian hotdog stand. If you just Google "Podesta Hawaiian hotdog stand," the third result solves the mystery (linking to the direct source, which is the 7th result).

I think the "Hawaiian hotdog stand" is something that @Cubo de Sangre was seen doing with @Lord Coke is the leaked videos documented in the POTWR thread.
 
I won before it started because in this thread you expressed a desire for more transparency from the government, just not its leading official.
You communicate like a fearful child. Have your empty victory then.
 
lol at the lefties in this thread talking about "ruining lives with unfounded claims". Unacceptable! Unless you're a conservative supreme court nom, I guess.
 
<LikeReally5>

You belong in the hole with @N13
If by hole you mean the Nexus, sure.

Whatever you have heard about the global human trafficking epidemic is nothing compared to how widespread and evil it really is.

IF you do not know this, understand it, or are in denial, you are one of those mindless idiots.

Leaves blowing in the wind, to and fro.
 
Last edited:
lol at the lefties in this thread talking about "ruining lives with unfounded claims". Unacceptable! Unless you're a conservative supreme court nom, I guess.


The difference being that a full investigation to find out the truth was desired by the side making the claims on the supreme court nomination process. I don't equate that with conspiracy theorists at all which consists mostly of a bunch of stoners watching videos and saying "That just doesn't look right to me."
 
The difference being that a full investigation to find out the truth was desired by the side making the claims on the supreme court nomination process. I don't equate that with conspiracy theorists at all which consists mostly of a bunch of stoners watching videos and saying "That just doesn't look right to me."

It's not even that. There was a person claiming to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh. You have to investigate that, there's really no other response. It was not a theory, it was an accusation from an alleged victim.

If a child claimed to have been assaulted by Hillary Clinton, then it would not be a conspiracy theory, it would be an assault allegation.

The two are not remotely comparable. I agree with him that people should not have claimed to know for a fact that he was guilty, that was irresponsible and immoral. But the two situations are quite different.
 
It's not even that. There was a person claiming to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh. You have to investigate that, there's really no other response. It was not a theory, it was an accusation from an alleged victim.

If a child claimed to have been assaulted by Hillary Clinton, then it would not be a conspiracy theory, it would be an assault allegation.

The two are not remotely comparable. I agree with him that people should not have claimed to know for a fact that he was guilty, that was irresponsible and immoral. But the two situations are quite different.

Did it seem like I was arguing against your point or am I now not understanding your point. We basically agree right?
 
Back
Top