Labour MP killed after being stabbed and shot in the street

[Brian Peacock]

Galaxian sees a conspiracy in opening a litre of milk.

Almost, but not quite. It should be evident by now that ANY important news item should be questioned as possibly/probably fraudulent and/or propaganda.

If the news says that there was a car chase on 1st street, or that a couple of kids drowned in the canal, OK, probably so.

It's the old adage that, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Trivia about a car chase or kids drowning are not world shattering events. 9/11 is, the Paris rock concert shooting is, Orlando is. So they MUST be treated with great suspicion. Halfway there is the Jo Cox MP murder.

When I was a child I believed that 90% of important things that we were told, for example on the news, was true and that the remaining 10% was in error only by accident. Now that I have lived too long and seen too much, I realize that 90% of important things that we are fed on the news is lies & deceit, and only 10% may be true, and that only because it happens to coincide with the official agenda & strategy.

You lot would do well to follow that example. You will see plain evidence, in your face, that you were blind to before. Glaring examples of fraud & control, that you'd kick yourselves for not recognizing before.

Here's a movie about your predicament:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwqa1mCt3tM


But 'cognitive dissonance' is a powerful drug. "The truth will set you free", but ONLY if you are humble, sincere & open minded

That's my favourite film, but come off it. It's not a documentary.

It's almost as if some people have difficulty separating fact from fiction.

[Meekychuppet]

Galaxian sees a conspiracy in opening a litre of milk.

Almost, but not quite. It should be evident by now that ANY important news item should be questioned as possibly/probably fraudulent and/or propaganda.

If the news says that there was a car chase on 1st street, or that a couple of kids drowned in the canal, OK, probably so.

It's the old adage that, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Trivia about a car chase or kids drowning are not world shattering events. 9/11 is, the Paris rock concert shooting is, Orlando is. So they MUST be treated with great suspicion. Halfway there is the Jo Cox MP murder.

When I was a child I believed that 90% of important things that we were told, for example on the news, was true and that the remaining 10% was in error only by accident. Now that I have lived too long and seen too much, I realize that 90% of important things that we are fed on the news is lies & deceit, and only 10% may be true, and that only because it happens to coincide with the official agenda & strategy.

You lot would do well to follow that example. You will see plain evidence, in your face, that you were blind to before. Glaring examples of fraud & control, that you'd kick yourselves for not recognizing before.

Here's a movie about your predicament:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwqa1mCt3tM


But 'cognitive dissonance' is a powerful drug. "The truth will set you free", but ONLY if you are humble, sincere & open minded

That's my favourite film, but come off it. It's not a documentary.

It's almost as if some people have difficulty separating fact from fiction.

It is a superb film but citing it here has convinced me that he is taking the piss.

[pErvinalia]

I did answer, explaining that I'm not transcribing the video for you.

I asked for a summary. You said that you won't do that. That is not what I'd call answering the question. It's more like saying "No. I decline." Then you insist that I answer yours? I told you why you're not getting one. Can you remember what the reason was?

Why would I summarise when you can just watch it? Asking me to watch a video for you is not the same as asking you what you mean or what you are talking about, but if you're going to behave in this way then what's the point?

You really are the king of straw, aren't you? He didn't ask you to "watch a video for [him]".

Of course he did. He asked for a summary of the video, therefore he is asking Meek to watch the video for his benefit and provide a summary.

We go from the king of straw to the king of illogic. Meeky had already watched the video. He didn't need to watch it again. All he needed to do was describe the argument contained in it.

[NineBerry]

Phone call by Orlando shooter

OD: What’s your name?

OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

Murderer of Jo Cox:

Asked to confirm his name, Mair said: “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” The judge then asked the defendant’s lawyers to confirm that his name was Thomas Mair, which they did.

Either some people very confused about their identities. or both false flags operations written by same author.

[rainbow]

Either some people very confused about their identities. or both false flags operations written by same author.

Clearly.

[pErvinalia]

Galaxian will let us know shortly..

[rainbow]

Galaxian will let us know shortly..

If the Lizard Overlords allow it.

[Seth]

We go from the king of straw to the king of illogic. Meeky had already watched the video. He didn't need to watch it again. All he needed to do was describe the argument contained in it.

That's not relevant to the demand that was made. The demand was that Meeky do Hermit's homework by summarizing the video. In order to do so, Meeky would have to watch the video, and in this case might have to watch it AGAIN in order to prepare a proper summary. Whether or not Meeky had already watched the video is irrelevant because the demand was for a work-product (summary) that requires watching the video and therefore Hermit was in fact demanding that Meeky watch the video on his command for his benefit. That's an unreasonable demand when Hermit can, and should, watch the video himself and provide himself with whatever information he requires in order to participate in the discussion.

It's utterly irrelevant that Meeky had already watched the video, the only thing that's relevant is Hermit's demand that Meeky do so for his benefit and to save him the trouble of doing so.

[Galaxian]

Galaxian will let us know shortly..

If the Lizard Overlords allow it.

And the Lizard Overlords have now allowed it. Here is an excellent video with David Icke's cogent & rational analysis of how this savage murder was possibly committed by vested interests, and how they did it.

It's all excellent, & rational, unlike official propaganda. But If you're short of time watch from 13 minutes onwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-W4ZK1M9ac

[Brian Peacock]

... Here is an excellent video with David Icke...

Oxymoron.

[Scot Dutchy]

... Here is an excellent video with David Icke...

Oxymoron.

The guy could not make a rational analysis if he tried.

[Seth]

... Here is an excellent video with David Icke...

Oxymoron.

The guy could not make a rational analysis if he tried.

Which guy?

[Brian Peacock]

David 'The Second Coming' Icke.

[pErvinalia]

We go from the king of straw to the king of illogic. Meeky had already watched the video. He didn't need to watch it again. All he needed to do was describe the argument contained in it.

That's not relevant to the demand that was made. The demand was that Meeky do Hermit's homework by summarizing the video. In order to do so, Meeky would have to watch the video, and in this case might have to watch it AGAIN

Bullshit. As if someone couldn't state the argument made in a video that they themselves just posted.

[Seth]

We go from the king of straw to the king of illogic. Meeky had already watched the video. He didn't need to watch it again. All he needed to do was describe the argument contained in it.

That's not relevant to the demand that was made. The demand was that Meeky do Hermit's homework by summarizing the video. In order to do so, Meeky would have to watch the video, and in this case might have to watch it AGAIN

Bullshit. As if someone couldn't state the argument made in a video that they themselves just posted.

That's utterly irrelevant. The whole basis of your argument is that Meeky should have just done as Hermit demanded because it would be convenient for Hermit. Meeky is under no obligation to make Hermit's life easier to begin with, and doing so would facilitate Hermit's sloth and would result in Hermit not watching the whole fucking video which contains much more than any summary would, including things that might be pertinent to Hermit's arguments that Meeky missed or didn't want to set forth.

You do exactly the same thing when you stick your nose in the air and tell people that you've already explained something elsewhere and therefore you're not going to provide details in the current thread in a vain and arrogant attempt to force people to go wading through your bilge trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about, so...pot, kettle, black and STFU.