I wouldn't even wipe my behind with that socialist rag 'The Metro'. Like most of the mainstream media, it has no credibility whatsoever and is pure propaganda.There's a reason why it's free (given out on shady street corners and buses)... because no one would buy it otherwise.Your average reader of The Metro is the usual Guardianista champagne socialist type that still believes in global warming and think there is a difference between the Lib-Lab-Con political parties. The Metro freely admit their rag is designed to be read in 20 minutes... hardly informative considering it takes far longer to do your research and find out what is really going on in the world.When you read the YouTube comments of the above videos, the close-minded fools are just seeing the 'ranting' and shouting by AJ. If they bothered to listen to his show and read his articles then they would realise he is just passionate about what he believes in. Not ruling out he might be controlled opposition though.Piers is just a man on the run who only wants to listen to himself. If he did come back to the UK then he should be arrested and charged for his links with phone hacking. He's a Common Purpose stooge too which says it all.The Jesse Ventura interview was better though as he knows how to deal with vicious reporters like Piers and play them at their own game (Jesse was a congressman after all):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peztNH3Ksww
too bad it was scheduled at the same time as the BCS national title bowl game. alabama vs. notre dame nobody was watching this...or maybe its a good thing nobody saw this ;)
I agree with Alex Jones, and not just because Morgan is an odious creep, but as we are finding out here, the government will not protect us and they are quite possible the biggest threat to our safety. But if AJ is a puppet of the illuminati, why is he defending an American's right to bear arms?
I didnt say I didn't agree with Alex Jones, but here are my concerns. 1) they let Jessie Ventura and Alex Jones on there, but never, ever do they let on the likes of David Icke on MSM. 2) The message was great but the aggressive and OTT nature of it, will only play into the very kinds of narrow minded automatic responses that actually work against it. He is aggressive and angry, he didn't listen, he only wanted to put his own ideas forwards. For those in the know, perhaps they just think he wants to get in as much as possible when there is so little opportunity for alternative ideas to actually get MSM attention? He also then looks like a 'crazy conspiracy theorist' and then all those ideas he puts forwards become marginalised as representing angry conspiracy theorists. It is not always what you say but the way you say it, you can speak all the truth you want but if people don't hear it then its wasted. And getting people to listen, winning hearts and minds normally takes putting across your message in a clear and calm manor. And not coming across like other peoples opions don't matter. I don't know, if it were me and I had a shot at MSM to get an alternative message across I would be really trying to put forward a reasoned argument and come across as relaxed and in control as possible. RE: Metro, I think it's important to see how these things get spun, because that is the perception most people will take on. And again, his performance will only pander to that kind of journalism and encourage the comments you see.
Good Input Toad Hall ... There is so much that doesnt make sense - but still no reason to jump to conclusions.I'd start any discussion on conspiracy with the money supply - that is a discussion based on facts - only clouded by levels and levels of bureaucracy - but its easy to demonstrate how massive frauds can be masked by levels of admininstration - example I use is Enron. That said , even if the truth were known - What difference would it make ? Would the majority really care so much that they would change anything ? I dont even think it would be accepted , until one day everyone would say ' oh everyone knows that ' ...
agree with all your points. There is so much happening in present day that reflects lessons that should have been learnt in the past. Falase flag attacks, followed by major changes in the law which affect civil liberties. What is different now to pre-ww2 is that people have the perception of freedom. And they're caught up in their own lives, enjoying the fruits of their labour and being 'entertained'. So much so, they're alseep at the wheel whilst someone else is navigating. Take the UK, ask any man or woman on the street what the civil contingencies act is, and they'll most likely draw a blank. Ask them if they know it was updated in 2004 in response to 'terrorism'?http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/contentsThe ground work to pen us all in, should their be a major catastrophe of some sort is all there, written into 'law'. Major world wide banking collapse, little green men in saucers, you name it, then we can start seeing the power of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, The Terrorist Act, The UK Borders Act 2007, The New Banking Bill (SRR), The UN Charter, The Earth Charter, The rights of the Child Act, ..the list goes on..But for AJ to rant about a totalitarian regime defence will just sound mad to most...
I know it's off-topic but this article might interest some:Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax:http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.htmlBill Gates (vaccines/depopulation) is another Al Gore (global warming scam)... both frontmen pushing the globalist/'Agenda 21' agendas.Remember this speech he did, too?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2sWhy couldn't Bill Gates stick to making operating systems/software which were full of bugs and crashed all the time... less people would be dead at least.
I think his appearance with Piers Morgan was driven by pure adrenalin,anger and passion,with probably a bit of overwork and not good enough preparation and advice by his colleagues as well.Time will tell whether his appearance will be of benefit or detriment-probably a bit of both. At least he showed some passion-his shouting might even have been neccessary to wake people up.... just to show that he can do fairly calm and collected interviews too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-fJNmrWPAEven so Piers Morgan might actually not know what the bigger picture is and genuinely cares??? Allthough he has no real right to try and change the constitution of another country and in all fairness the calls for him to be deported are therefore just
If Jones is managed dissent, here he is letting his side look deranged and unable to see reason.
PM is a loathsome character, he is so ego-centric, I think he likes to be a thorn in peoples side for the attention. And as an ex-media whore, I'm sure he has files on everyone hence how he managed to lead into TV in UK so quick. I don't think you get to the place he is in society wtihout being in cahoots with the hidden hands. But how much they let the likes of him know is indeed questionable. I'd say not much. He is a slippery little sh.....
If he is managed dissent at least he makes it entertaining!
@Chris JonesYes, Morgan's face was a picture, almost as if he was expecting a repeat of what happened when he met Jeremy Clarkson.He seems to have that effect on people (unsurprisingly).
Clarkson is probably worse than Piers - chums with war criminal clown Cameron, and the payed mouthpiece for xenophobia and selective racism on the BBC. Not really wanting to give Piers credit but he did speak up for Diana and against those who are alleged to have bumped her off...maybe the deluded prig gets it right sometimes
I have to agree about PM there, he also made some very valid points in the documentary that Tap posted about Diana recently. Unlawful death. I found myself being quite surprised to agree with him and have him make some intelligent and even empathetic comments. Clarkson is a funny one. He is also one of the 'Chipping Norton Set', with the Murdochs and d Rebekah and Charlie Brooks.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipping_Norton_setClarkson always dismisses global warming and environmental issues. I always wondered why if he is heavily into that group and agenda. As they're all very pro climage change. I know Clarkson is a plonker, but I can't help quite liking him because he is such a proud and unapologetic plonker. I also like Top Gear. :)
@Toad HallPro climate change?Do you mean he is sceptical about man made global warming?
@ Toad Hall- maybe Clarkson and Morgan are just useful idiots to be played against each other as the the token opposing clowns in the pantomine?
Post a Comment