CryoLemon1
Temporal Novice
Re: Prisonplanet.com = sh!t
That's good then
That's good then
I don't think so. You apparently aren't that familiar with Alex Jones and the other people who run Prison Planet.Let's take Alex Jones as an example.That would be a radical liberal agenda intended to demonize any action that a conservative administration takes to protect people. Democrats on the far left want to make Republicans look like fascists, which is utterly absurd.
Fine, I will not dismiss it because I don't trust the source. But there are plenty of other reasons to dismiss it, namely:1) Because this source, more often than not, references its own reports as a means to support its "facts".OK, here's another article from Prison Planet. I urge you to read it, and not dismiss it as complete sh!te just because it's from a source that you don't trust.
True enough, but it certainly does use divisive, emotional language, most often in its opinions. And why might that be? Is it possible that this is a tactic to get people SO riled up that they will join-up or send money to this "fine organization that is doing God's work"This is not a party thing, it's not made to bash republicans or anything. Forget about the parties.
To show you how this is emotional/biased reporting at its worst, and to counter your claims that ALL of this is being passed, here are some more quotes from the article:"Senate bill 742 in Oregon which was slimly defeated by just three votes would have classified terrorism as a plethora of completely unrelated actions. "NOTE: I did NOT pass. Ergo democracy still works and is still alive.However, the legislation that is being passed is there to control the people of America, it's pure fascist crap.
So obvious to you, who does not live in America, when you buy-into emotional, BIASED reporting which clearly injects its own opinions and seeks to enflame your emotions. Stop insulting my intelligence with this clearly biased crap. You know so little about America... I live here pal, you don't. So are you going to claim you know my country better than I do just because you read biased "reports"?RMTIt's just so freakin' obvious.
Which have references to mainstream media reports.1) Because this source, more often than not, references its own reports as a means to support its "facts".
True. However, I tend to ignore that.2) Because this source, while wanting you to believe it is a reputable and unbiased news reporting outlet, consistently injects its own, highly biased, editorial opinions into its stories.
That could be possible. However, some people do tend to get a bit emotional when they see this kind of crap going on in their country. But I agree that the article should be more clearly marked as a opinion/editorial.These people do however need money to pay their bills, buy food and clothes etc. like everybody else in America. I doubt it's charity work going on there. The people who run Prison Planet however do encourage people to make copies of their videos/other stuff and give them to other people for free.Is it possible that this is a tactic to get people SO riled up that they will join-up or send money to this "fine organization that is doing God's work"
Yes, but it was a very close call. And that people are even suggesting that kind of fascist crap is a bit worrying.All of these from the same article. And all of these are reports of something that DID NOT COME TO PASS.
I'm not buying into anything. I just read what legislation is being proposed and passed, and it reminds me of places and things like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, 1984 etc.I know little of what it means to be American, that is true. I don't know what you know (can't read minds), but as far as American politics and current events go, I can know as much or even more about it than you. It's amazing how you don't have to live in a country to know about what happens in that particular country anymore, the internet is truly a great inventionSo obvious to you, who does not live in America, when you buy-into emotional, BIASED reporting which clearly injects its own opinions and seeks to enflame your emotions. Stop insulting my intelligence with this clearly biased crap. You know so little about America... I live here pal, you don't. So are you going to claim you know my country better than I do just because you read biased "reports"?
China Launches Its First Piloted Spaceflight 15 October 2003China in Space - No Date Given - 4th Qtr 2003My observation: Heard nothing about this, yet.
From what I've come to understand, that 100K killed thing was just a figure of speech thing. Not really a prediction or anything.100K Killed - No Date Given - Not YetMy observation: Anyone remember the Tsunami?
Wasn't this epidemic supposed to be in like 25-30 years? iirc the virus had a latent period of 30 years or so, according to "John Titor"Mad Cow in US - No Date Given - 12/23/2003My observation: It did hit the US for a short time.
New Hampshire also wanted to secede from the Union before 9/11, iirc. In Vermont there's also this organization called "Second Vermont Republic" that wants Vermont to secede from the Union.http://www.vermontrepublic.org/Civil War Starts - 2004/5 to 2008 - Not YetMy observation: Anyone hear anything about how Texas wanted to become it's own country? Anyone notice the popularity of southern states flying confederate flags? None the less: Bush v.s. The People is an obvious potential war between the people and it's own government.
With today being Day 7 of the Torino Olympic Games we can conclude that this prediction is unfulfilled, as is the prediction for civil war in the US to start in 2004/2005.RMTLast Olympics - 2004 until 2040
He said that Iraq has nukes - and then asks if our "surprise" at discovering this information "now" is BS to justify a war, because we already knew they had them.Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?
Yes, this is another good one where people continuously wish to "interpret" a different meaning from these words rather than accepting the literal meaning that is right there in the words.This one is a bit more nefarious than the words "official Olympics" because the wording is quite clumsy, and likely this was on purpose. You can't really argue the fact that Titor used the words "official Olympics" and that we are at day 10 of the official winter Olympics in Torino. Yet people will endlessly argue "what Titor meant" with the Iraq nukes quote rather than just understanding what he actually said.ut over the years people have read other people's posts about this particular "prediction" without looking at what Titor himself wrote. They then pass on their "knowledge" of what was said as if it was the truth.
That was a hoot, wasn't it?To me, this illustrates a lesson of physics with respect to Information. Namely, that the Information that someone is projecting to you (i.e. the Iraqi Information minister who was told to present these lies as truth) does not necessarily represent the truth of reality at any point in Space, at any given moment in Time.I still remember the governmental figures of Iraq claiming that the U.S. was being repelled and was no where near the Capitol city, when you could see U.S. tanks rolling down the streets in the background.
Notice - there's no particular context. But it was a bit of a joke. The "people" that he was refering to were the members of the forum. And he was the person imagining the look on their faces as they bit on the hook (some actually swollowed the hook - no catch and release there.)Jan 29, 2001.
I get no pleasure out of being right when it comes to CJD disease, war in the Middle East or suffering people in far away lands. There's nothing like the look on someone's face when you tell them 100,000 people will be dead tomorrow.
Charlie Was...1 year Ahead back to 2003 Quoted:Titor didn't predict a tsunami.
No, Some US States/Comonwalth think the same or can you explain what about theWithout a context who should be surprised except as stated above. Unless, perhaps, Titor was well aware that his target Internet alt-sci audience would assume facts not in evidence, i.e. they'd read into the post what they wanted to see even though it wasn't in the post?