Note. Too that were not going to have a 500 page thread of spleen-venting and ranting about the “heavy censorship” here. If you don’t like this place, BOOGIE ON OUT.
Hoax? No. But certainly a sensationalist site. Much embellishment.
Since evidently you have a discernment problem, go back to the “proscribed” thread and read the op.
NOTE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF SITES.
Where does Infowars fall in those categories?
I often disparage posts made using CNN, Politico, WaPo, MSNBC, etc, as content sources. Sometimes I move the threads to ALT.
I would like to answer Dennis' question, on what sources allowed, - "the Weather Channel!" but I can't: they report on climate change like it is real.
Climate change is a lie to help bring down the West, destroy the ZUSA. It is part of a very bad agenda, and I learned that a long time ago. If there really was a problem, the answer would be simple: plant more trees.
I do like some reporting of some stations. But none could be allowed. They all report some actual truth, but they all mix in lies and bias...because of a controlled agenda, and the trickle-down deceptions.
Isn't it grand? NOT.
There is a YouTube by the original Weather Channel guy debunking climate change.
This is exactly why I require precious metals articles to contain a statement as to whether or not the author or source website sells PMs.Discernment.
Knowing the position of those brokering the presentation and how fact is intertwined upon fact vs. with the slight deviation of agenda to sway you to outcome.
Look, you’d never be convinced and you know it. So just understand that NN material will be moved to ALT.
We good?