Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jalisco555
In other words, the prevailing theory that the photo was released to distract from infanticide is wrong. It was released because of infanticide.

You are missing a critical point:

I could release recent footage of, e.g., Hillary with her face all black with burnt cork, crying "I don't know nothing' about birthin' no babies, Miz Scawlett!" for any number of different reasons - but the Mainstream Media wouldn't make a big to-do about it.

The question is not, "Why was it released?" (that question deals only with the motivations of a lone individual) but rather, "Why have the MM flooded the airwaves with it?"

Regards,

5 posted on 02/06/2019 1:59:21 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: alexander_busek

“The question is not, “Why was it released?” (that question deals only with the motivations of a lone individual) but rather, “Why have the MM flooded the airwaves with it?””

Very good point. It isn’t a nutcase conspiracy theory that journalists have coordinated with, and conspired with, the Democrats. There was the Journal-list (however it was spelled) website, the debate questions released ahead of time to Hillary and the coordinated talking points when every major media outlet uses the exact same phrasing on some political point. People won’t pay for propaganda, as evidenced by the firing of over 2000 “journalists” this week. (As if someone with a degree in gender studies who writes feature articles on her vagina can be considered a “journalist.”)


11 posted on 02/06/2019 4:19:18 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson