Bilderberg Group - World Dominance?

[deprogrammed]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

PS as you quote PrisonPlanet in post no. 4 you obviously are well aware that the the host is Alex Jones - yet you have repeatedly refered to him as Eric in numerous posts. Readers may want to ask why hhzg trys to distort and debunk esp. following his comments in post no.4.

PPS I personally think Alex Jones is a shill by the fact of what he doesn't report. However, i did not make the statement that you make in post no. 4: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

As I said to Naam, I read both sides and try to take a balanced view. You seem to have an agenda to distort!!

Edited May 27, 2009 by deprogrammed

[canuckamuck]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

What a pile of nonsense:

To have a theory you have to be right on every facet, ever heard the term hypothesis? ALec is building a case, many people are building cases. All of them have some parts that are misinterpreted.

There are many points that have been raised in this thread that are serious red flags. But I guess there is no point in talking about them at all. As long as there is a shadow of a doubt the fox can stay in the henhouse. What is wrong with questioning the direction the world is going, are you so sure it's all good?

[OriginalPoster]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

Don't be daft, he was clearly making a sarcastic statement. Read the statement again and notice the words that he chose to put inside quotation marks. He wasn't endorsing that site, he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda that was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

Edited May 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[deprogrammed]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

Don't be daft. Read the statement again and notice the words that he chose to put inside quotation marks. He wasn't endorsing that site, he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

So you speak for this guy - you must be a team So pray tell me why did he keep refering to Alex as Eric? And what is your view on PrisonPlanet - or have you made up your fair and balanced view by the name alone?

And by which rules of grammar are we to understand that by placing a name or general generic term within quotation marks indicates that the whole statement is moking???

Any reader who understands basic rules of grammar knows you are talking absolute BS> You may fool some retards though!

Edited May 27, 2009 by deprogrammed

[canuckamuck]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

Don't be daft. Read the statement again and notice the words that he chose to put inside quotation marks. He wasn't endorsing that site, he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

So you speak for this guy - you must be a team So pray tell me why did he keep refering to Alex as Eric? And what is your view on PrisonPlanet - or have you made up your fair and balanced view by the name alone.

And by which rules of grammar are we to understand that a statement made within quotation marks indicates moking???

He's right. that was a mocking response to prison planet.

[OriginalPoster]

Alex/Eric, what's the difference - his video is nonsense. When someone believes he has developed a unified conspiracy theory, it has to be air tight. It's similar to sudoku, you don't get a wrong number in one cell - the problem is evident in many cells. When Alex lies about one thing, his supporters reply, "Sure he lied about one thing, but everything else is OK." When a second lie appears, his supports say, "OK, so he lied about a second thing, the rest is OK." When you point out a dozen things that are wrong, his supporters say, "You're not a free thinker, you should do research." Well, we do, and it's evident that the conspiracy fanatics are the ones who refuse to open their eyes, and do research. Bygon developed a conspiracy theory that had "the US declared war on Viet Nam", as his lynchpin argument. Well, he's wrong - the US never declared war on Viet Nam - and the conspiracy websites that he trolls are wrong. There is a point of law that could very well be used to advance the conspiracy theory of why the US did not declare war (in Viet Nam, in Afganistan, or in Iraq) However, no conspiracy website has visited this point. Since no conspiracy website has visited this point, neither you nor you like-minded friends have considered this point. Put on your thinking cap, deprogrammed, you might make sense of this yet.

I remember the old days, when only minorities complained about being exploited by the man. Now, with the advent of the internet, and the explosion of "alternative media websites", we can now call ourselves victims. Thank goodness for the alternative media blowhards!

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

Don't be daft. Read the statement again and notice the words that he chose to put inside quotation marks. He wasn't endorsing that site, he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

So you speak for this guy - you must be a team So pray tell me why did he keep refering to Alex as Eric? And what is your view on PrisonPlanet - or have you made up your fair and balanced view by the name alone.

And by which rules of grammar are we to understand that a statement made within quotation marks indicates moking???

I have no position on prisonplanet and I know nothing about Eric nor why anyone would call Alex by that name, I'm just telling you that his statement was obviously laced with sarcasm. It's hard to understand how you could have not picked upon on that. Certainly you can't think that he initially had a positive opinion about prisonplanet and then suddenly changed his mind.

Edited May 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[deprogrammed]

[

Wait a moment you said: I think that a writer associated with "prisonplanet.com" is likely to provide a fair and balanced view of any "secret society"

Please readers, read what his guy said in post no.4 and read what he says in this post. 180 degree turnaround - strange one thinks!

Don't be daft. Read the statement again and notice the words that he chose to put inside quotation marks. He wasn't endorsing that site, he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

So you speak for this guy - you must be a team So pray tell me why did he keep refering to Alex as Eric? And what is your view on PrisonPlanet - or have you made up your fair and balanced view by the name alone.

And by which rules of grammar are we to understand that a statement made within quotation marks indicates moking???

I have no position on prisonplanet and I know nothing about Eric nor why anyone would call Alex by that name, I'm just telling you that his statement was obviously laced with sarcasm. It's hard to understand how you could have not picked upon on that.

Again, please enlighten me as to when the rules of grammar changed to imply that a name or generic term placed within quoation marks indicates that a surrounding statement or quote is moking?

If you have thought this then i am pleased to inform you that you are simply wrong.

How, can you say you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com when you said this: -----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

[OriginalPoster]

Again, please enlighten me as to when the rules of grammar changed to imply that a name or generic term placed within quoation marks indicates that a surrounding statement or quote is moking?

If you have thought this then i am pleased to inform you that you are simply wrong.

How, can you say you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com when you said this: -----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

You have a really hard time admitting when you're wrong, even when it's over some inconsequential item, don't you? You are making yourself look foolish by insisting that the guy was making a serious statement and crying foul because he later contradicted that statement. Maybe English isn't your first language, or maybe he should have put a smiley face at the end of his statement, but you're barking up the wrong tree over this one.

Edited May 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[deprogrammed]

Again, please enlighten me as to when the rules of grammar changed to imply that a name or generic term placed within quoation marks indicates that a surrounding statement or quote is moking?

If you have thought this then i am pleased to inform you that you are simply wrong.

How, can you say you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com when you said this: -----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

You have a really hard time admitting when you wrong, even when it's over some inconsequential item, don't you? You are making yourself look foolish by insisting that the guy was making a serious statement and crying foul because he later contradicted that statement. Maybe English isn't your first language, or maybe he should have put a smiley face at the end of his statement, but your barking up the wrong tree over this one.

You said you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com - but you previously said this:

-----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view

So when you said the above you were obviously moking Or not - so what is your position. Do you stand by the above statement giving your position or do you not have a position.

[quiksilva]

I picked up on the mocking tone of those quote marks, from the context in which it was written.

But sarcasm is not the easiest tone to get across in plain text. English grammar is quite restrictive when not used in a formal setting, like say, a forum where informal discussion takes place.

Prisonplanet seems to be a website with only one aim in mind, promoting traffic to sister sites and selling its authors books and DVD's on conspiracy theories to people who probably prefer 'Chariots of the Gods" to cold hard science.

I had never heard of this website until some the crackpots here started posting links to the "undeniable truth" spouted by this guy. Was I alone? All this thread does is drive more traffic there, where upon you follow the links to "SURVIVAL ZONE!!" as you conduct your research for the "truth" making Alex and his mates richer with every click.

It makes me wonder whether the guys who keep quoting stories posted at that site are on a commission...

How about that for a conspiracy theory? (Apologies if there's any holes in it, its my first attempt)

[OriginalPoster]

Again, please enlighten me as to when the rules of grammar changed to imply that a name or generic term placed within quoation marks indicates that a surrounding statement or quote is moking?

If you have thought this then i am pleased to inform you that you are simply wrong.

How, can you say you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com when you said this: -----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

You have a really hard time admitting when you wrong, even when it's over some inconsequential item, don't you? You are making yourself look foolish by insisting that the guy was making a serious statement and crying foul because he later contradicted that statement. Maybe English isn't your first language, or maybe he should have put a smiley face at the end of his statement, but your barking up the wrong tree over this one.

You said you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com - but you previously said this:

-----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view

So when you said the above you were obviously moking Or not - so what is your position. Do you stand by the above statement giving your position or do you not have a position.

You have a real talent for latching onto the irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a position on prisonplanet? I think that it's a very biased sounding name, that's all that I can say confidently about it.

Edited May 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[deprogrammed]

Again, please enlighten me as to when the rules of grammar changed to imply that a name or generic term placed within quoation marks indicates that a surrounding statement or quote is moking?

If you have thought this then i am pleased to inform you that you are simply wrong.

How, can you say you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com when you said this: -----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view.

You have a really hard time admitting when you wrong, even when it's over some inconsequential item, don't you? You are making yourself look foolish by insisting that the guy was making a serious statement and crying foul because he later contradicted that statement. Maybe English isn't your first language, or maybe he should have put a smiley face at the end of his statement, but your barking up the wrong tree over this one.

You said you have no position on PrisonPlanet.com - but you previously said this:

-----he was mocking it and insinuating that it should be obvious that a web site with an over-the-top name like prisonplanet would have an agenda than was something other than to provide a fair and balanced view

So when you said the above you were obviously moking Or not - so what is your position. Do you stand by the above statement giving your position or do you not have a position.

You have a real talent for latching onto the irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a position on prisonplanet? I think that it's a very biased sounding name, that's all that I can say confidently about it.

No difference really, but you gave your position then said you didn't have a position. I stated my position - I think Alex Jones is a shill. He mixes some truth with some BS therefore making the truth questionable. He also makes a few quid out of selling doom. My position

Edited May 27, 2009 by deprogrammed

[OriginalPoster]

You have a real talent for latching onto the irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a position on prisonplanet? I think that it's a very biased sounding name, that's all that I can say confidently about it.

No difference really, but you gave your position then said you didn't have a position. I stated my position - I think Alex Jones is a shill. He mixes some truth with some BS therefore making the truth questionable. He also makes a few quid out of selling doom. My position

I gave my gave my position then said I didn't have a position? I can assure you that whoever picked the name "Prison Planet" picked that that name for a reason and that they didn't pick it with the intention of sending out signals that they are an objective news source. Being able to perceive that and to be able to see the sarcasm in someone calling it fair and balanced does not require me to give a toss about that web site, nor does mean that I am one of the sheeple that have ruined your life.

Edited May 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[teatree]

I picked up on the mocking tone of those quote marks, from the context in which it was written.

But sarcasm is not the easiest tone to get across in plain text. English grammar is quite restrictive when not used in a formal setting, like say, a forum where informal discussion takes place.

Prisonplanet seems to be a website with only one aim in mind, promoting traffic to sister sites and selling its authors books and DVD's on conspiracy theories to people who probably prefer 'Chariots of the Gods" to cold hard science.

I had never heard of this website until some the crackpots here started posting links to the "undeniable truth" spouted by this guy. Was I alone? All this thread does is drive more traffic there, where upon you follow the links to "SURVIVAL ZONE!!" as you conduct your research for the "truth" making Alex and his mates richer with every click.

It makes me wonder whether the guys who keep quoting stories posted at that site are on a commission...

How about that for a conspiracy theory? (Apologies if there's any holes in it, its my first attempt)

So by the same logic I guess Thaivisa is part of a conspiracy to lure people who have an interest in Thailand into studying Thai, buying a business or using a 1 baht per min phonecard to Europe.

[canuckamuck]

So far I have been falling for that Thai Visa conspiracy. Thanks for uncovering it Tea Tree.

[deprogrammed]

You have a real talent for latching onto the irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a position on prisonplanet? I think that it's a very biased sounding name, that's all that I can say confidently about it.

No difference really, but you gave your position then said you didn't have a position. I stated my position - I think Alex Jones is a shill. He mixes some truth with some BS therefore making the truth questionable. He also makes a few quid out of selling doom. My position

I gave my gave my position then said I didn't have a position? I can assure you that whoever picked the name "Prison Planet" picked that that name for a reason and that they didn't pick it with the intention of sending out signals that they are an objective news source. Being able to perceive that and to be able to see the sarcasm in someone calling it fair and balanced does not require me to give a toss about that web site, nor does mean that I am one of the sheeple that have ruined your life.

You are indeed a lost sheeple Again my friend you need to consider whether you have a view point or not. The spook guy who made said statement has said nought on the matter - so let it be know that you speak for the profane in matters of your choosing!

[tartempion]

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government."

Why they would allow directors of WP, NYT, TM in their secret meetings is beyond me

[hhgz]

deprogrammed,

I apologize for my "sarcastic tone". It appears that you are trying to defend Alex Jones as if he had your best interests at heart. He does not. I'm not being sarcastic. According to Alex “The Obama Deception is the absolute truth – if you don’t believe me, check out everything I said” Jones, Obama lied when he said he would never appoint a lobbyist to his cabinet. A lobbyist is “a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby”. According to Alex, “Leon Panetta was a lobbyist”. That’s not true. Mr. Panetta was a California congressman, a Director of the OMB (Clinton), a White House Chief of Staff (Clinton), a member of the Iraq Study Group, the director of his self-named public policy institute and now, the Director of the CIA. Mr. Panetta was never in any position to influence any legislation for the groups that paid him a speaking fee. Mr. Panetta’s relationships to the groups, his behavior and his qualifications were vetted by the Congress, and nothing inappropriate occurred. He was never a lobbyist – it’s just another lie that Alex has foisted on his conspiracy fanatics.

“But”, you'll whine, “he accepted speaking fees.” That’s true, as did Presidents Reagan and Clinton. “But”, you'll continue, “they weren’t in the government when they accepted their speaking fees.” That’s true, and neither was Mr. Panetta. When he left the government he was the director of his Public Policy Institute. “But”, you'll whine, “Alex said he was a lobbyist.” That’s true he did, and he lied. Which brings me to a story that is attributed to Abraham Lincoln. During one of his debates, he asked his opponent, “How many legs does a horse have. “Four.” “That’s correct. If you call his ‘tail’ a ‘leg’, how many legs does he have?” “Five.” “No”, Lincoln replied, “a horse only has four legs. Just because you call a ‘tail’ a ‘leg’, it doesn’t make it a leg. Just because Alex says something, it doesn’t make it true. As you’ve seen throughout these discussions, if he said something, you should be very skeptical. You should do your own research, apart from your slavish devotion to the “alternative media”.

[OriginalPoster]

You have a real talent for latching onto the irrelevant. What difference does it make if I have a position on prisonplanet? I think that it's a very biased sounding name, that's all that I can say confidently about it.

No difference really, but you gave your position then said you didn't have a position. I stated my position - I think Alex Jones is a shill. He mixes some truth with some BS therefore making the truth questionable. He also makes a few quid out of selling doom. My position

I gave my gave my position then said I didn't have a position? I can assure you that whoever picked the name "Prison Planet" picked that that name for a reason and that they didn't pick it with the intention of sending out signals that they are an objective news source. Being able to perceive that and to be able to see the sarcasm in someone calling it fair and balanced does not require me to give a toss about that web site, nor does mean that I am one of the sheeple that have ruined your life.

You are indeed a lost sheeple Again my friend you need to consider whether you have a view point or not. The spook guy who made said statement has said nought on the matter - so let it be know that you speak for the profane in matters of your choosing!

Your need to apply labels to people is quite charming. Is that what being "deprogrammed" means to you, that whenever you sense that someone might disagree with you that you should launch into personal attacks against them? Your aggressive tone seems quite odd, considering that your only reason for going after me is because I pointed out that you had misinterpreted another poster's sarcastic statement as a sincere one. This whole thing about whether I have an opinion about Prison Planet is just a tangent that you created so that you could accuse me of things instead of admitting that you were duped by a sarcastic statement.

Edited May 28, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Naam]

vhat der eff? i am confused! somebody please clarify whether it is Eric or Alex who has (or has not) a position because he was deprogrammed and received a chip implant by zionist influenced Bilderberg agents in a prison named "planet" during a food riot

[canuckamuck]

Sigh!

There is a great debate possible on this topic but alas. The wing nuts arguing their minor points once again drown out those who are trying to have a reasonable discussion. This is why the conspirators brazenly continue their scheme. The dissenting side has no composure.

There is plenty of real issues to discuss rather than the intention of certain quotation marks.

[Naam]

Sigh!

There is a great debate possible on this topic but alas. The wing nuts arguing their minor points once again drown out those who are trying to have a reasonable discussion. This is why the conspirators brazenly continue their scheme. The dissenting side has no composure.

There is plenty of real issues to discuss rather than the intention of certain quotation marks.

[canuckamuck]

"Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is used in United States Politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views. According to Merriam-Webster, it is analogous with the word "radical."

The term is generally considered disparaging. (Wikipedia)

[hhgz]

deprogrammed,

The latest issue of BK Magazine has this tidbit in the “Last Week in Reality” column:

In Surat Thani a man captures a ghostly image on his cell phone. The man refuses to show the image to anyone because he believes that the pii prit (“the ghost of a tall, ugly woman”) will come afer him. The clip is analyzed by a professional videographer, who concluded that the shadow probably resulted from the traces of bird droppings on the camera lens. You, bygon, and several others (“oh, the video is so compelling”, gushes one birdbrain) think you’ve seen something special, and it’s only a bunch of fecal material. You and bygon are as sharp as the leading edge of a bowling ball.

Eric “I stand behind everything in ‘The Obama Deception’” Jones, pulled another sly one on all of you, bygon, and the rest of the conspiracy fanatics. In the video, you see an unidentified man saying something similar to, “several of us were told that if we didn’t vote for the stimulus bill, we would have martial law” (actually, his comments were much longer, and were edited for effect), and the voiceover intones something similar to, “and they were given only 5 hours to read a 1,000 page bill and, after the bill was signed, Obama said, ‘there’s no hurry’”. Doesn’t it seem odd that Alex took great pains to identify a couple hip hop artists, but he failed to identify the person who made these incredible charges? I know, you’re saying, “Oh, he just forgot.” Alex did not forget anything – he’s trying to misdirect you, and he has succeeded brilliantly. The unidentified speaker was California representative democrat Budd Sherman. His comments were made on October 2, 2008 (a month before Obama was elected), and were made in conjunction with the stimulus bill that was signed by President Bush. Why would conservative Alex Jones make it appear as if the person was commenting about the stimulus bill that was signed by President Obama? The voiceover was also related to Bush’s bill, and had nothing to do with President Obama. You read it here first, Alex lied to you, again. Why would he lie? It’s because the truth did not support his personal agenda. Alex challenged you to do your own research about his video and, thus far, you have refused to do so. His video “The Obama Deception” should be titled “The Alex Jones Deception”.

[AlexLah]

Indeed have to check stuff yourself but it seems there are some more people not trusting the guy.

This guy is a very much awarded journalist and film maker.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530

Check also his frontpage, there are some funny/interesting stories/observations there as well.

But how about the 9/11 commission members now saying the official story of what happened is bogus?

[canuckamuck]

Indeed have to check stuff yourself but it seems there are some more people not trusting the guy.

This guy is a very much awarded journalist and film maker.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530

Check also his frontpage, there are some funny/interesting stories/observations there as well.

But how about the 9/11 commission members now saying the official story of what happened is bogus?

Can you show the link? I can't see anything about 9/11 or what part is the front page either

[AlexLah]

Oh sorry I thought it was now about the alledged Oboemoe spiracy.

Ok, one of the guys from the commision even wrote a book about it http://www.amazon.ca/Ground-Truth-Behind-A...e/dp/0151013764

Here you can find some more about the commision saying the report does not tell what really happened. http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

(You have to scroll down a bit)

Here a link to an article in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html about that matter.

[teatree]

deprogrammed,

The latest issue of BK Magazine has this tidbit in the “Last Week in Reality” column:

In Surat Thani a man captures a ghostly image on his cell phone. The man refuses to show the image to anyone because he believes that the pii prit (“the ghost of a tall, ugly woman”) will come afer him. The clip is analyzed by a professional videographer, who concluded that the shadow probably resulted from the traces of bird droppings on the camera lens. You, bygon, and several others (“oh, the video is so compelling”, gushes one birdbrain) think you’ve seen something special, and it’s only a bunch of fecal material. You and bygon are as sharp as the leading edge of a bowling ball.

Eric “I stand behind everything in ‘The Obama Deception’” Jones, pulled another sly one on all of you, bygon, and the rest of the conspiracy fanatics. In the video, you see an unidentified man saying something similar to, “several of us were told that if we didn’t vote for the stimulus bill, we would have martial law” (actually, his comments were much longer, and were edited for effect), and the voiceover intones something similar to, “and they were given only 5 hours to read a 1,000 page bill and, after the bill was signed, Obama said, ‘there’s no hurry’”. Doesn’t it seem odd that Alex took great pains to identify a couple hip hop artists, but he failed to identify the person who made these incredible charges? I know, you’re saying, “Oh, he just forgot.” Alex did not forget anything – he’s trying to misdirect you, and he has succeeded brilliantly. The unidentified speaker was California representative democrat Budd Sherman. His comments were made on October 2, 2008 (a month before Obama was elected), and were made in conjunction with the stimulus bill that was signed by President Bush. Why would conservative Alex Jones make it appear as if the person was commenting about the stimulus bill that was signed by President Obama? The voiceover was also related to Bush’s bill, and had nothing to do with President Obama. You read it here first, Alex lied to you, again. Why would he lie? It’s because the truth did not support his personal agenda. Alex challenged you to do your own research about his video and, thus far, you have refused to do so. His video “The Obama Deception” should be titled “The Alex Jones Deception”.

HHGZ

I did some 'research' and watched the part of the Obama deception you refer to (from around 1h10min to around 1h18min) and can only conclude that either you saw an edited movie, you copied your thoughts from a debunking website without checking them or you yourself are being deceptive.

The whole thrust of the film is that a group of finance oligarchs have controlled every president since JFK and that whoever the president is the policies remain the same, with special reference to Obama as he is now president. The part of the film you refer to covers the history of how the current financial crises started and pins the blame firmly on the 'bankers'.

The 'unidentified' man is clearly announced by the narrator as "Congressman Brad Sherman of California" at the precise moment his picture is displayed on screen. The fact that he is talking about the 1st banker bailout is self-evident, do people really need to be told that the president at this time was Bush? Are people really that ignorant? Just in case people are that ignorant, the film in this segment actually says, and I quote 'PRESIDENT BUSH and Senetor Obama worked in tandem to get congress to pass the bill". The film then has footage of Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel commending Obama on his efforts on getting the bill passed. The point being that although Obama was not the president at the time, he was one of the 1st banker bailout's biggest cheerleaders (there is footage of a speech he made to support this), something which is news to a lot of Obama supporters. It is it not insinuated at any point that Obama was president at the time.

The film then goes on to President Obama's stimulus package, where it is pointed out that congress was given less than an hour to read the bill even though Obama pledged on his campaign trail to wait 5 days before any bill was passed. There is footage of Obama saying how important it was that the bill be passed immediately, without any delay. According to the film Obama then took a 4 day vacation and it was clearly in reference to President Obama's Stimulus package (not the 1st banker bailout as you erroneously think) that the claims are made of Obama saying there was no rush to sign it.

I suggest you watch The Obama Deception again from 1h10 to 1h18, try the 'change da channel' version on youtube. Or if you like, PM me and I'll mail you a copy.

[hhgz]

"I'll mail you a copy."

Thanks for your kind offer, but I've had enough of Alex for a while. I understood the gist of the video, and that's why I wondered why Alex was so intent on Obama's involvement. Alex commented that Obama's inner circle only included financial types, but no one from "big oil" or the American car manufacturers. Oh no! In the video, he then complained about how big oil conspired to raise the oil prices - but remained mute about the quick fall of the prices. Perhaps big oil conspired to lower their profits. Oh no, not another conspiracy! Too, Alex complained about the impending governmental bailout of the American car manufacturers. Simply, with or without big oil or American car manufacturers as part of the inner sanctum, Alex had something to complain about.

You evidently missed Alex's purposefully misquoting Thomas Jefferson, and the convoluted editing of Rahm Emmanuel's comments to suggest that president Obama was calling for the mandatory conscription of young adults.

Edited June 2, 2009 by hhgz

[BygonKeaw]

Ah nice to see this thread is going, Havent been on here for a week as i have been serving a 7 day ban.

Naam in that time i have been watching lots of german comedy, Im sorry but i still dont get your humour

Edited June 3, 2009 by BygonKeaw