I'm not defending or siding with anybody. I'm just an advocate for peaceful discussion.
Being a hypocrite, no matter what "side" you're on, is foolish. You can't say "You're juvenile because all you do is resort to insults rather than debate like an intelligent human being!" when you do the same thing when presented with an opinion that differs from your own. People tend to forget it goes both ways.

Would you prefer no links? then I will hear complaints I'm making stuff up and have no sources.

There's just no making anyone happy.

You know originally I was ONLY going to post the 4 hours/links and stuff like I did originally, but having links to the articles that are being referenced seems helpful, so I include those, and any major talking points they bring up that can be condensed. Sometimes they aren't condensed, usually interview portions like with Danney Williams-Clinton.

Beyond quitting this (which I don't think I'll do just yet) what would be the best way to present the information? What would be helpful to everyone and favorable?

I like jousting and serious discussion, so it's all good for me. ;p
It really should be a sticky. lol

But if it was a sticky, i doubt anyone would notice it...

What irony...

First of all, have you come upon more than one or two people who show interest in this thread other than the common "DELET THIS" response? If not, I advise you either keep it privately between your small group or otherwise find a different forum where you can discuss this with like-minded people.

Second of all, if you absolutely MUST insist on continuing in this forum/thread due to some sort of nigh-religious conviction or other, skip the links and present your arguments.

Third of all, actually ACKNOWLEDGE those who differ with you in an intelligent manner (I mean the people like onefiercepuppy who present facts opposing your case, not the people who are just saying "GET OUT" and such, although they may have valid points as well if you look beyond the anger). Ignoring their arguments or otherwise not even looking into them is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE I'M RIGHT". If you refuse to realize that your point of view isn't necessarily correct and don't do the proper debating and research to prove otherwise, you'll never learn anything and you give credit to those who are saying you're just spamming.
Mind you, this isn't necessarily saying you have to change your views. You're free to believe whatever you want. I'm saying you have to be prepared to defend those views, and if you're not, you truly are just spamming because you want others to believe your opinion regardless of what the facts are.

Today is Sunday, day of the Sabbath.

Best quit posting all spam links now.

It would be helpful and favourable for you to present your information in the same place you get it, your Alex Jones websites and the infowars forums. That is where it belongs.

News is not spam.

That's easy. We're not on the brink of war with Russia.

Opinion is not news.

It's not information. It's fear-mongering based on fuck all. And pretty batshit crazy fear-mongering too.

It makes sense you're a Trump supporter. Rational thinking isn't his strong suite either. Just read he's now claiming Clinton was hopped up on drugs in the 2nd debate, and she should be tested ahead of the next one. It gave me a good laugh =)

Nor is it as spicy.

BTW, here in Australia we don't say ham, we say Spam.

Spam is real spiced ham, we don't say ham, we say Spam.

I think you are all learning why all of my post in here are lewd jokes and spam.

You can't reason with him.

NO MATTER what you post he will either twist your words, blow you off, or insult you.

Save yourself the frustration. In a few weeks the largest landslide in the history of American politics is going to take place and there isn't a damn thing his bullshit paranoia can do about it.

You should explain that to the media. We only have 24/7 opinion panels under the labels of "news networks". Not saying Alex Jones qualifies as news, but he's not much worse than what we're already subjected to from television. The only difference is they have to follow certain formulas (FOX for example), while he has no restrictions like any radio host. But if you compared him to FOX you'd probably say both are pretty similar (right wing extremists), while concluding that CNN or BBC were genuinely journalists if you agreed with their views even though they do the same things on the opposite spectrum.

She did go from incessant coughing, mucus, and falling over to being able to stand for an hour+ at a time pretty quickly though. Lots of people were expecting her to fall over during the first debate.

Don't know why. They seemed to get along well.