Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
I know he exists. What I don't know is where this article he wrote was published. It's not in the Daily Mail archives.Not seeing the article posted in website's archives does not give credence to the link you posted.
your not gonan find every article in the archive
look oswald i doubt they would lie about this..cos all someone has to do is come forward and prove them wrong
yeh but they have mentioned someones name who is actually with the guardian ...and they said he wrote the article...now if i wanted to write a load of lies i woudnt mention someones name who is actually in the mainstream media..because all the guardian would have to do is come forward and say that it is all lies...its too risky for them to lie over that
Originally posted by Deano
yeh but they have mentioned someones name who is actually with the guardian ...and they said he wrote the article...now if i wanted to write a load of lies i woudnt mention someones name who is actually in the mainstream media..because all the guardian would have to do is come forward and say that it is all lies...its too risky for them to lie over that
I wouldn't even dispute whether or not the guy wrote the article. The link you posted was said to have originated in the Daily Mail, yet the article is not in the Daily Mail's archives. If the article was never run, then the author is a liar for claiming it was.
Does it matter a tiny toss if he wrote it or not?
The article is about the book
It's not reporting anything directly. It is a piece on the fact that a book claiming all this is being released, the full context of which is removed from Deano's selective quoting.
And so, yay, whopee, another conspiracy book is out. So what? As a linked source, real or otherwise, this is entirely worthless.
Good sources show evidence, not opinion.
Politics divides people all over the world, and billions take it seriously when political office is the almost exclusive bastion of the corrupt, stupid or myopic. It's not a matter of who we should vote for, but why we should even bother when the system is so blatantly rigged. You wouldn't let Boy Bush run a market stall without parental supervision and yet he's a two-term president who sends young men and women to kill and be killed while others of his mental age are at home playing with their Lego.But people get so caught in this irrelevant tripe, as if their vote will change anything. 'Who do you think we should vote for? What do you think about Bush on the economy and Kerry on defence? What about their wives, which one would be a better first lady? Do you think Kerry would be better on Iraq? And what about his record in Vietnam, do you think he was
telling the truth, and what about Bush avoiding the draft Will you shut-the-****-up?! It's all bollocks.I give you Political Elections for Dummies, which, as you will gather from the title, is particularly aimed at anyone who voted for George W. Bush. Both candidates in US 'elections' (and other significant ones around the world including Britain) are funded by the major Illuminati corporations
and controlled by the same force. Global politics is just a game to
fool the people.The money is handed over - well in excess of a billion dollars to Bush
and Kerry in 2004 - and, in return, the piper asks the payer what music he likes. Those who funded the Bush campaign in 2000 have made incredible profits from the decision to invade Iraq by providing the weapons to destroy the country and the 'expertise' to 'rebuild' what their bombs had devastated. This includes that infamous duo: the Carlyle Group, fundamentally connected to father Bush, and Halliburton, the oil services giant headed by Dick Cheney until he left to become US vice-president and minder to the juvenile delinquent. The 'party' system of politics was designed by the Illuminati to make it easier to control. Instead of having to manipulate hundreds of individuals making free decisions according to their own conscience, they only have to control the party hierarchies.
Deano, read what you posted. There are exactly zero sources backing up what is being said. Just because someone makes a statement of fact, it does not become fact.
I challenge you or any other conspiracy theorist to provide the paper trail that proves Kerry and Bush are receiving money from the Illuminati. I know banking, and everything has a paper trail. Produce the transaction files that show money moving from the source to the two candidates. A chart of how someone thinks it works is not acceptable. I want to see actual bank statements.
You want me to prove that Tony Rennell didn't write the article that you posted? Well it is not in the Daily Mail archives, therefore it does not exist. There is your anti-proof. Now prove it does exist.
Originally posted by Deano
yeh its gonna be real easy to get the paper trail isnt it, they aint dumb you know
maybe i will email tony and ask him 😎
You're right it's not going to be easy to get the paper. I wouldn't expect you to be able to do it. But someone who makes claims such as the ones made in your quote must have proof like that to be taken seriously. Any financial transaction can be traced in this day and age. And if the trail is not there, the deletion instance will be.
Understand Deano, that it is easy to make statements like that, but you have to be willing to do the work to research it. Proving this guy wrong is easy the moment he can't provide factual sources to back his claims. See the holes, Deano. Admit that they are there. Then keep believing what you want, but do it with an open mind.
Originally posted by a1hsauce
i dunno if this has been mentioned but does anyone remember the bombing in Spain it happened on a train or a subway...well that actually was 911 days after September the 11th. they think that one might not have been an accident.
😂 no shit sherlock ; could the bombs have been done purposely ?