ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
jbob said:
Can Baudrillard be misunderstood?
David Icke: Was he right? C5 11pm (boxing day)
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
Can Baudrillard be misunderstood?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
mikeinworthing said:
By being grade A insane?
i came across a document online after farenheit 911 was broadcast in the uk and it tore the film to shreds. im sure it can be googled; something about the facts of farenheit 911 by the independent society or something.BEARBOT said:the fact that david icke draws such big audiences is SO frustrating.
the fact that the TRUE things he states about us/uk governments seeking to control their populations/take away our freedoms thru various legislations which are supposedly to "fight terroists" are then NEGATED by all his far out lizard madness...it really drives me batshit!
the speculations made my some posters that he is a "disinformation agent" or perhaps that he doesnt beleive all the material he presents himself and just comes out with far out crap to make a lot of cash seem possible..but IMHO its largely just his mental health issues coupled with a big ego that are fueling him.
i still really want to know why michael moore is such a bad guy raver drew,any websites/links you can point me in the direction of i will take a look at..im very interested, cheers!
it mentions that the woman who, during the course of the film is protrayed as being super-patriotic, then her son dies in Iraq, then she becomes anti-bush was already aware of the death of her son prior to the filming (its not presented that way). It doesn't show, during the scene where someone criticises her outside the whitehouse, that critic actually apologising because she didn't know the woman had lost her son. It neglects to mention the UK as one of the many 'insignificant' countries allied with the US. It protrays Iraq as some kind of social utopia with kids flying balloons (no mention of Saddam's treatment of his own people). There's a whoe bunch of stuff that is worng with that film and Moore is nothing more than a sensationalist who uses cheap media trickery to make, albeit, ruin a good point. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I also don't agree with Moore's attempt at manipulating me into agreeing with me and in so doing his becoming some kind of folk hero.
it also mentions that one of the guys who got wheeled into wal mart in bowling for clumbine wasn't actually against guns either (one of the gunshot victims).
editor
hiraethified
Oh look. It's another unprovoked personal attack from Jazzz in the absence of anything approaching a defence to my points.Jazzz said:editor you are quite insufferable
The fact that you think that a post declaring that someone "came across" an unknown, unnamed and since forgotten document "online" somewhere or another represents some sort of credible argument speaks volume of your woeful inability to research your idiotic claims.
Not so long ago you were citing a fucking sci-fi fantasy article set in the year 2012 as 'proof' of the existence of holographic WTC-toppling planes.
It was only when people bothered to do the research you should have done in the first place you realised that you'd made a king size arse of yourself again. I've lost count of the times you've posted up such unresearched shite. It's a joke.
And now you have the fucking nerve to complain when I ask a poster to back up and qualify his equally vague claims.
I guess you just prefer to avoid researching and checking your bonkers claims and would rather live in your deluded conspira-bubble, eh?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
blimey, bit early for conspiraloon hunting
yeseditor said:
you (and the others who so gleefully attack conspiraloons at every opportunity) are obviously quite content living with your beliefs so it would be pointless for me to try and change them.
and blagsta, yes i am on drugs. I've been smoking some very good bud for a couple of weeks) and no i'm not related to max freakout.
I'd rather you simply stopped acting like a tit. Why not just let people say what they think? It's not as if you have to agree.editor said:Oh look. It's another unprovoked personal attack from Jazzz in the absence of anything approaching a defence to my points.
The fact that you think that a post declaring that someone "came across" an unknown, unnamed and since forgotten document "online" somewhere or another represents some sort of credible argument speaks volume of your woeful inability to research your idiotic claims.
Not so long ago you were citing a fucking sci-fi fantasy article set in the year 2012 as 'proof' of the existence of holographic WTC-toppling planes.
It was only when people bothered to do the research you should have done in the first place you realised that you'd made a king size arse of yourself again. I've lost count of the times you've posted up such unresearched shite. It's a joke.
And now you have the fucking nerve to complain when I ask a poster to back up and qualify his equally vague claims.
I guess you just prefer to avoid researching and checking your bonkers claims and would rather live in your deluded conspira-bubble, eh?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
David Icke: Was he right?
Is it too late at this stage to reply "no"...?
Is it too late at this stage to reply "no"...?
editor
hiraethified
People can say whatever they like - Lord knows I've let you get enough with enough offensive shit over the years - but I have every right to ask posters to back up their vague claims.Jazzz said:
I know you regularly like to take unsourced "found on the internet" claims at face value, but I'm proud of the fact that most posters here demand a little more from debates.
You seem upset that I've dared to ask a poster to provide some details about his vague, foggy claims about a forgotten, unnamed online document written by an unknown author some time or another that supposedly "tore the farenheit 911 film to shreds."
Why is that? It's got nothing to do with you.
Why shouldn't I ask for clarification?
mikeinworthing
New Member
editor said:
Where's the poll
Well, I still care that you drag any 'conspiracy' thread down into an endless interrogate-a-thon, and I don't see how you can suddenly go 'it's got nothing to do with you', no consideration like that would ever stop you posting on a thread.editor said:
Had you wanted clarification you could simply ask 'have you got a link for that wishface?' - but no
Similar threads
