26 votes

Alex Jones Challenges Piers Morgan To Moderated Debate

Gun control showdown – round two

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com | January 9, 2013

Fresh off an explosive CNN confrontation between the two that has generated viral media attention, Alex Jones has challenged Piers Morgan to a another debate on gun control that would be overseen by an independent moderator.

The debate would take place either on Jones’ nationally syndicated radio show, on Morgan’s CNN slot, or at a neutral venue and would follow classic debate-style rules with an equal amount of time for each speaker.

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-challenges-piers-morgan-t...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Goals

"So my 3 hours is spent now.

10 years from now I get my life in a fraction of a second.

That is time preferences at work from a POWER perspective. I think my money (time and energy) was well spent this morning, and for all I really know I may be paying back something you offered months ago, just so that I can even things up for something that may happen in 10 years."

My hope for you:

John 3:36 KJV
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 10:10 KJV
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

is that you have abundant life today thru Jesus Christ and everlasting life outside of the wrath of God thru Jesus Christ. There is nothing more important as far as I can see from a POWER perspective for you and for those you love.

Peace is possible in the midst of a storm, and we may very well see a storm in the form of WWIII. Jesus is the Prince of Peace.

John 14:27 KJV
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

...

Hey guys :D

How's it going? Saw your mammoth debate and couldn't help butting in! Had a question for you Josf:

(Btw, I think Josf is a Bakunin-style anarchist, so I think he is a little pinko!) Let me say Josf wanted to thank you for educating me about the extreme difference between the Dec. of Independence (good) and the Constitution, which on closer inspection is as you say a recipe for tyranny, and always was (even if its measures look way more libertarian than our current predicament). And for intro'ing me to Shay's and Whiskey rebellions as a sign of this, and Washington's culpability in new federal oppressive state. BUT, I've heard that the whiskey rebellion was in fact drummed up by Edmond-Charles Genêt the French ambassador to the US, who was a fanatic Jacobin and wanted to plunge the US into the kind of chaos, dictatorship and bloodletting that was going on in France at the time, "the terror" (Communism - kill all rich people). Given that, wasn't putting down the rebellion the only thing Washington could do?

Do you think Jefferson was sent to Paris so he would be out of the country when the Constitution was debated and signed?

Wd be great if you could respond without writing a novel and with as few as possible ambiguous and cryptic rhetorical questions in it! ;)

Hey Bear, check out this totally amazing and epic Christian history of the world:

http://www.dailypaul.com/269989/the-strength-of-the-liberty-...

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDDGl79x4Pc

You should check it out too Josf! Happy New Year guys!

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

I don't know.

"Do you think Jefferson was sent to Paris so he would be out of the country when the Constitution was debated and signed?"

I thought as much, and Thomas Paine wasn't around either, nor was Franklin much of a factor.

I think it is clear as to what was going on during the events in 1787 since those who were there (not Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry?, Mason?, or who know who else wasn't attending) blew the whistle but only after the Gag order was lifted.

Does that sound familiar?

Here:

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

Some of those invited to join in on the secrets (The Dirty Compromise) figured out that it was a usurpation and that was even before the so called Ratification process.

The hypocrisy goes like this:

Liars say this:

The Mob is dangerous and can't be trusted with political power, so we have to step up to the plate and take over.

Liars do this:

The people hired to represent them know that these guys are liars, so what do the liars do, they gain access to The Mob through their power to control the newspapers, and they run a false advertizement campaign known as The Federalist Papers, and they demonize anyone daring to call the liars on their lies, and the liars label those people who are defending against those lies by the name Anti-Federalists.

So the liars bypass the process that worked to defend liberty against the largest army on the planet at the time and they then manipulate the masses through mass media of their Modern Times and in that way they get the power of usurpation realized so that they can then take over completely - Monopoly of every kind possible - specifically taking over The ONE legal money supply.

I can get relevant quotes from that book linked as needed, but this reply may be past due.

https://www.facebook.com/TheFuelProject

More of that which is covered up by lies?

Joe

Good stuff.

That book looks amazing

Patrick Henry: "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." Wow, he wasn't messing around!

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Right on Patrick Henry

If only more people listen to the facts.

Is that intelligent, moral, thoughtful, internal, individual, Mob Rule, or is that merely Common Sense?

From the book of secrets:

Page 3

The Genuine Information, delivered to the legislature of the State of Maryland, relative to the proceedings of the General Convention, held at Philadelphia, in 1787, by Luther Martin, Esquire, Attorney-General of Maryland, and one of the delegates in that said Convention.

Mr. Martin, when called upon, addressed the House nearly as follows:

Jumping to page 13

…; but it may be proper to inform you, that, on our meeting in convention, it was soon found there were among us three parties, of very different sentiments and views.
One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate al State governments, over this extensive continent, of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there was a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.

The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to establish a system, as could give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States.

A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican; this party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegations from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland; …

Now, please, I’m cutting out some text that is relevant but wordy, and moving ahead some to this:

But,Sir, the favorers of monarchy, and those who wished the total abolition of State governments, well knowing, that a government founded on truly federal principles, the basis of which were the thirteen State governments, preserved in full force and energy, would be destructive of their views; and knowing they were too weak in numbers openly to bring forward their system; conscious also that the people of America would reject it if proposed to them, - joined their interest with that party, who wished a system, giving particular States the power and influence over the others, procuring in return mutual sacrifices from them, in giving the government great and undefined powers as to its legislative and executive; well knowing, that, by departing from a federal system, they paved the way for their favorite object, the destruction of State governments, and the introduction of monarchy. And hence, Mr. Speaker, I apprehend, in a great measure, arose the objections of those honorable members, Mr. Mason and Mr. Gerry. In every thing that tended to give the large States power over the smaller, the first of those gentlemen could notforget he belonged ot the Ancient Dominion, nor could the latter forget, that he represented Old Massachusetts. That part of the system, which tended to give those States power over the others, met with their perfect approbations; but, when they viewed it charged with such powers, as would destroy all State governments, their own as well as the rest, - when they saw a president so constitute4d as to differ from a monarch scarcely but in name, and having it in his power to become such in reality when he pleased; they being republicans and federalists, as far as an attachment to their own States would permit them, they warmly and zealously opposed those parts of the system.

So...the Monarchists, or Nationalists, were faking like they were Federalists, and the Federalists (Republicans) who called out the false Federalists were falsely named Anti-Federalists and the false names stuck.

Abject belief in falsehood without question.

Says so right here:

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

It is official

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

OK, so, what is the bill now?

How much is owed?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Is that the official lie now?

They (criminals who stole government) borrow from us, so how is it that we owe them?

Abject belief in falsehood without question.

Joe

Amazing.

Depressing to see it laid out so clearly like that. Was that text from the same book? Hey Josf what do you think of this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/272826/my-profile-picture

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Same book

It is difficult to pick out the best quotes from that book, there are so many.

I left a comment on the other thread.

I hope it helps.

Joe

I've been wondering for a while:

What is a Bakunin style anarchist?

I find I am not very smart about history...but when France went thru their revolution was it a communist revolution?

Well..

good question. Been reading about this recently. Always thought the French Revolution was a whole different thing from the Russian communist one, which was based on Marx writing decades later, but when you look into it, they were virtually identical. Marx didn't invent communism as we know it, it was all done before by Robespierre and his gang of psychopaths.

Bakunin was the original anarchist from the 1840s, a friend of Marx. But I think maybe it was unfair to call Josf that! He's too much of a Liberty lover!

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Time for a change?

Bakunin was a contemporary of Warren, Andrews, and Spooner.

That time period was before those events that are now called The Civil War.

That time period was after Andrew Jackson (a Nationalist) took over control of the Central Bank (in-fighting as in: Legal Crime) and those were then the days of Wild Cat Banking, and a growing (growing since at least 1787 and The Dirty Compromise) abhorrence of LEGAL SLAVERY.

Andrews was an abolitionist, and a white guy, a genius, in command of speaking many languages, that type, a real smart guy.

Warren was a worker, inventor, and he invented his own printing press to get around the Monopoly Press of the day, speaking of equitable commerce, which then became known as anarchism.

Warren is called The First American Anarchist, but Warren rejected any title that does not accurately communicate information - rightly so.

Now Marx, as far as I know, was among those anarchists, in that time period, but his work lent itself better to Legal Criminals, and then there is Bakunin.

Bakunin pointed out, as did Andrews, the failings of socialism, while pointing out, at the same time, the productive uses of socialism, so both Andrews and Bakunin were thrown out of The Club that became known as The Communists.

Spooner, meanwhile among the anarchists, could be seen as the true voice of reason, if not as much an actor in the day to day power struggle.

Warren did not simply say things, he proved his work in experimentation, and his work is alive and well in any case where commerce is equitable - self evident facts - if anyone cares to look.

In my considered opinion, it was Warren's work on such things as The Cost Principle, and The Labor Dollar, that inspired The Communists to counterfeit that understanding into a nebulous Labor Theory of Value.

Modern day Political Economists, to prove a point, refuse to even entertain the work of Warren, preferring instead to regurgitate the lies invented by The Communists. I can quote from Rothbard on that point, and I have an open challenge to anyone thinking otherwise.

"Bakunin was the original anarchist from the 1840s, a friend of Marx."

If possible the above sentence could be explained in some way.

A quick search uncovers this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robert...

THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2

I can expand further on the links between Marx and Warren and how The Communists had to censor the genuine liberty minded "left" (so called).

Joe

Andrew Jackson

I'm slightly unsure about Jackson. He was a mob-rule democrat and a nationalist. However he was also the guy that kicked the Federal Reserve ('National Bank') out of the US for seventy years, suffering assassination attempts in the process.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Involuntary Union Man

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

In that book it is reported how Andrew Jackson was in the same league as all the so called "Federalists" (Monarchists/Nationalists/Consolidated Government) as Jackson took steps to begin The Civil War on at least one occasion, as States were in the process of seceding from the union over inequitable, and arguably unconstitutional, taxation.

The People running the States were warned before The Constitution was signed, but the "Federalists" had more POWER over mass media at the time, and they published a pack of lies (campaign promises to be broken) with the so called Federalist Papers, which sounded benign, or even nice, to The People falling for that false front, false advertizement campaign.

Warning:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information?"

It isn't that complicated. The criminals, frauds, wanted a Monopoly Bank of their choosing. They say that Mob Rule is bad, as they play the mob with their false rules, those so called Federalist Papers. And the representatives speak out, warn everyone, hey, look what they are doing, they don't want to allow the States to pay, or not pay, Union Dues. That makes it hard to collect Union Dues.

Where is my conscripted Army of Slaves that I need for collecting Union Dues from States that refuse to pay?

The so called Federalists didn't wait for The Civil War.

All nice and official like:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

They started collecting National Debt in 1794.

The Civil War (A battle between two Despotic Nation States) cleared up any residual questions concerning who was the ONE boss.

That is all official too:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Andrew Jackson wanted absolute control too, no "help" from an English Banker, but seriously the Spirit of Liberty ended with Washington's conscripted Army invading Pennsylvania.

I can grab relevant quotes on Jackson from my copy of The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions if you care to read them.

Note: Madison confessed his error in helping the so called Federalists as they created National Debt through their abomination they call The Constitution. What would The Constitution, so called, be without The Bill of Rights?

The Nationalists/Monarchs/Despots/Slave Masters/Legal Criminals hid behind a False Front, False Flag, they called Federalist, and that was a joke, really funny, since the actual Federalists were given the name Anti-Federalists by the Nationalists.

Does that sound at all familiar?

Hi, I'm a conservative.

Really, so what does that mean, you tax everyone as much as you can so as to build up an army of aggression for profit and you spend all that tax money on any war that can turn a fast buck?

Hi, I'm a liberal.

Really, so what does that mean, you tax everyone as much as you can so as to build up an army of aggression for profit and you spend all that tax money on any war that can turn a fast buck?

I think the accurate word is criminal, and they give themselves licenses to perpetrate the crimes they perpetrate while they also give themselves the license to punish, crush, and destroy anyone who dares to compete in any way, good or bad.

Welcome to Earth?

Joe

Happy New Year Willl!

Nice to hear from you. I am looking at Bakunin on Wiki. I don't know the difference between an Anarchist, Communist, or a Socialist. It seems that so much of that history is intertwined and the twine connecting it may be the LEGAL CRIMINALS. Just had to throw that word in LOL :) I am watching the FueltheProject Link you started me on and Josf & I may pop in over on your post to continue a discussion we are currently starting if it is agreeable with him. Otherwise, I'll just pop in.

I have let Josf know that you are talking to him over here since it showed up as a reply to me.

Josf & I do tend to write novels.

So here is something else I am going to throw out even though you were directing this info towards Josf. It seems to me that I read in the last 10 months that Jeffereson was finally agreeable with the constitution BECAUSE he did not want to see a French style revolution resulting in THE TERROR in America. I wonder, maybe that trip to Paris served more than one purpose. Then again, I could have the wrong founder in mind. I have such a poor memory. But I do remember reading something along those lines about something...lol

...

Quick response

"If I start handing you occult information and saying it is good and I think their speakers should do this or that, you might ask me if I belong to that organization."

It is important, as demonstrated by my example, to work to avoid confusion. Here is a case.

1.
I confuse your questioning me about my associations (which don't exist) with what you call PINK with you finding me guilty of, and punishing me, because of that association I have with what you call PINK (which does not exist).

2.
I might ask you if you belong to that organization, a thought you have, but as far as I know my concerns have nothing to do with associations you may or may not have, and my concerns are instead concerns having to do with your competitive viewpoint and your competitive actions: so you are apparent confused about my thoughts and my actions.

Perhaps this is a consequence of barriers that exist between one viewpoint and another.

I have to get some work done at this time.

Thanks for suffering through my reply, and thanks for offering another competitive viewpoint to consider.

I plan on reading the rest of your reply shortly.

Joe

Motives

“If you demonize John Pilger by closely associating him with PINK, then you fail to live up to your own demands. A person like John Pilger goes out and finds out who is doing what, where they are doing those things, and when those things are being done.”

I did not demonize John Pilger by closely associating him with PINK. He was speaking to socialistworker.org and they were applauding him. Am I wrong to make some type of association between him and that group? What kind of group is socialistworker.org? Maybe I am wrong by calling it Pink: The color that has swept over South America.

I am not going to find quotes. I am just going to say this. I feel afraid when I hear left speak. I am afraid of left because left represents socialism and communism…the involuntary kind…in my mind. So when I hear John Pilger speak I begin to wonder what is his motive? Why is he pointing out all the bad done by the right. Why isn’t he pointing out the bad done by the left. I would consider that neutral. Who is going to point out the bad done by both sides? G. Edward Griffin. He seems to do that IMO.

So, if I am going to hand someone a link of who I think should moderate, I would hand G. Edward Griffin.

I am afraid of the left right now because it feels like there is civil unrest in our country. I suppose I am speaking of the people in that geographic designation I made. The people are at opposite poles and I see people speaking at both ends of those poles who cover up the crimes at both ends of those poles to get the innocent people who support those (poles because of the noble ideas each of those sides present) to be at war with one another so that the criminals can make us have a civil war. That is what I think and that is why I am afraid of left. Left can speak of nationalism or of a republic as if they are speaking of things that are true and right when all the while they mean RED. Then it seems BLUE speaks of a republic and patriotism all the while they are supporting the performance of terror upon 3rd world people who do not deserve to be terrorized.
-------------------
Then we start discussing not trading with the enemy. Well isn’t that what sanctions are all about? So why would we support not building a railroad or not taking shiploads of goods? To put sanctions on people? Isn’t it the people that suffer when sanctions are implemented?
----------------
And I suppose I am wrong because I thought you thought there could be a place of absolute equity. That is what I thought.

I only used the word trained again because it was the word you used and you had already told me not to use conditioned. See, I try to follow the line of thinking, or at least respect your wishes even if I think differently.

"But 2/3 of Americans say she should be guaranteed health care according to John Pilger."
Can you elaborate on exactly what John Pilger actually said or is it good enough for government work to equate John Pilger with the people you don't like sitting on porches?

I gave you quotes and also gave you the link and the time. Here it is again: “I mean the same thing John Pilger is saying when 64% of the people want more taxes to guarantee healthcare for everyone. 2/3 of Americans say government should care for those who cannot care for themselves…starting at about 27.40… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

Why do you insist on saying I don’t like people. I do like the porch sitters. I give them money. I do not like what the involuntary left has done to those people. I do like the girl with cerebral palsy. I give her rides several times during the week. But, I do not think that your money that was stolen from you should pay for her. I think her family should take care of her. I think I should take care of her. I think our church should take care of her. I do not think you should take care of her in the form of involuntary government payments. She has free blood work every 6 months since Obama came into office. Why every 6 months? Why not every 9 or every 12? Money flows? What if her family had to pay for it, would they choose every 6 months? And now if we don’t have national healthcare who do you think is going to be mad? Those that got free bloodwork every 6 months are going to be like the dissillusioned in Spain when the bottom falls out of our economy and they are going to turn on the very people that paid for that bloodwork because they think it was free…government free…not out your pocket or mine. At the same time they will let the non violent and violent criminals out of the prisons and they will turn on those of us who paid to keep them locked up and radicallized. They will probably be armed with the same guns they confiscate from the law abiding population. That is why I am afraid. And when I hear left speak those are the things that I fear.

“What, exactly did John Pilger do, whereby that action by John Pilger disqualifies John Pilger from the list of people who could offer a competitive version of a moderator in a debate between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones on the subject of criminals who disarm their victims?”

I don’t have a good answer. I asked if he was neutral. It seems to me that the left is trying to disarm us. Did he speak out when Australia was disarmed?

“Let me try to rap my head around this claim. John Pilger spends his life going to this place and that place, interviewing victims of criminals in government, because John Pilger wants to be one of the criminals in government, and until he can reach his goal he has to be satisfied with merely reporting on the torture and mass murder by criminals in government, he doesn't get to be one of those who do the torture and the mass murder himself?”

It just seems like he is only telling one side of the story.

“Did John Pilger ever claim that he has a perfect society in view?
You wrote this:
Where is John Pilger’s perfect society?
That looks like deception to me.”
------------------
I see deception in pointing out all the bad and nothing good. As if everything is bad, bad, bad. Where is something good. Are there not any happy people in any of those places he goes? Why not show the middle. If all that is shown is bad then that is deceptive to me.
----------------------
“I am inspired by your words to defend John Pilger. What do you think that does to my credit rating on this forum?
I welcome the opportunity, because the truth is very valuable, but what do you think my defense of John Pilger does to my credibility on this forum?”

I don’t know. Why should it mess with your credibility? You gave me the link. You must think he is credible. I think you are credible, so what is the problem? Is it this forum? Is it the people on this forum who do not like John Pilger. If so, then I am inspired to ask: Why? So far you are the only one talking to me about this. Jeff doesn’t know who John Pilger is. I asked. I could ask some other people on this forum, but I didn’t I asked you. Is he a good guy? If so, then why would people discredit you by defending him? If he is a bad guy, well then say so. I don’t know. I just know he is a guy. A guy on the left talking to a socialistworker.org group which I think is also left. I know, there is no such thing as left/right; Democrat/Republican; Communist/Capitalist. There are just criminals who do wrong. But I still have a bias because of my conditioning.

Joe Quote:
"Distrust of vast stores of power employed by few people is necessary for survival of the species - in my opinion - so why allow all that power to be so readily available to those few people in any case where the power flows by way of deceit, threats of violence, and violence (crime)?”

It seems to me that that is exactly what socialism does. But I finished watching that Indonesian link and the people are having trouble because things are being privatized instead of subsidized. It takes vast stores of power employed by a few people to subsidize things.

Speaking of Joe Quote…I didn’t do my bookwork this week. What does that say about me?

“I welcome the opportunity to defend the power that is productive such as the information offered by anyone, including John Pilger, no matter how wrong the person is in choosing sides as far as my own choices are made in the same context.”

But if he chooses the wrong side, how can he be defended? Maybe his productive information is misinformation? I didn’t see any documents supporting his claims. I saw him, I saw pictures. I heard him, I heard his pictures. I can show you pictures and words…who says they are true?

“ Equality in context of left leaning, genuine left leaning, means all the people are equal in the eyes of the law, as in the statue of the lady with the scale. “

Now to me that is a right leaning concept. All are equal in the eyes of the law. Justice. True Justice. And what I think is the left says that but then when it is implemented you get things like ACORN; Social Security; Obamacare

Your input is welcome as well. I think I have missed it and that is why I spent time today talking instead of doing my bookwork.

Now I need to do supper work. This is a very rough cut. I am sure it is probably worse than my last as I have typed fast and not been careful nor have I reread. I hope it makes sense.

Did I shoot the messanger?

...

Failing to define terms.

" Maybe I am wrong by calling it Pink: The color that has swept over South America."

The point was offered. John Pilger defines terms, and you are failing to define terms. Why? What is PINK?

South America is a very large section of real estate, there are many people alive, and many people not alive anymore on that very large section of real estate. What do you mean when you say that "The color that has swept over South America?"

I have a friendship with someone living in Brazil that has lasted since about 1985. He has reported some interesting things to me, so I may have an angle of view on whatever it is you mean when you say that "The color that has swept over South America."

"I feel afraid when I hear left speak. I am afraid of left because left represents socialism and communism…the involuntary kind…in my mind. So when I hear John Pilger speak I begin to wonder what is his motive? Why is he pointing out all the bad done by the right. Why isn’t he pointing out the bad done by the left. I would consider that neutral."

Do you remember my point about not finding a neutral person?

Here it is again.

"Who is going to point out the bad done by both sides? G. Edward Griffin. He seems to do that IMO."

If Piers Morgan picks a moderator, it seems to me, he would never pick John Pilger or G. Edward Griffin, because those two are too close to the truth.

If Alex Jones picks a moderator, he might pick either, I don't know, but certainly G. Edward Griffin is closer to Alex Jones in political economy.

What do you think would be the questions and answers asked or answered if John Pilger were to interview G. Edward Griffin or visa versa?

You claim that G. Edward Griffin would be a neutral moderator compared to John Pilger. I do not agree, so we two need a moderator too. G. Edward Griffin appears to fail to recognize the fact that the founders (so called) of this current National government were counterfeit Federalists who were in fact Monarchists, Nationalists, and Central Bankers (Legal Criminals), or despots. How can someone be neutral if their "side" is based upon such ignorance?

No one.

Not me.

Not you.

That was my point.

My point is based upon the Power Struggle viewpoint.

I chose John Pilger because he reports factual information as does Alex Jones. I chose John Pilger to make sure that there could not be a claim made by anyone on the left that the moderator would be hand picked, or cherry picked, by the right side.

If you claim that John Pilger supports the counterfeit socialists, then your claiming that John Pilger supports criminals.

You support criminals, and so do I, every time we use Federal Reserve Notes.

Who do you know, anywhere, where that person acknowledges the fact that any involuntary association, any "tax" enforced by deceit, threats of violence, and violence, upon the innocent, is the definition of crime, and crime made legal by criminals?

Show me one person.

If there aren't any people knowing this fact, or so few that you can't find but one, or two, in the whole world, then what does that say about any chance you, or anyone, has in finding a neutral person?

What do you call neutral?

What, in your viewpoint, is the full measure of neutrality?

Pacifism?

That is about as neutral as all the Germans during the Nazi regime who kept on fueling the torture and mass murder because they didn't want to move their own sorry behinds further up the line into the gas chambers. Is that what you mean by the word neutral?

"So, if I am going to hand someone a link of who I think should moderate, I would hand G. Edward Griffin."

That was my point. There isn't anyone that is neutral. Your pick is no better than my pick except in your mind, certainly not in my mind, and if you have an army of people sharing your pick, seriously, how many people do you think would protest your pick, even if you have a sizable army backing up your pick?

How about this: If no one, anywhere, agrees with my pick, only I agree with my pick, then that is much more of a measure of neutrality than your pick if roughly half of the population, the same list of people called "the right" share your pick, and roughly half of the population rejects your pick, and again, not one other person but me picks John Pilger.

No one on the left will pick him, and no on on the right will pick him, because of why?

Just like me going to Jury duty. Thanks dude, but no thanks, we have a goal here, and accurate information is not welcome.

"That is what I think and that is why I am afraid of left. Left can speak of nationalism or of a republic as if they are speaking of things that are true and right when all the while they mean RED. Then it seems BLUE speaks of a republic and patriotism all the while they are supporting the performance of terror upon 3rd world people who do not deserve to be terrorized."

Sure, but you have the colors mixed up. Right is now Red. Left is now Blue. You are not reading from the new script, you are about a generation behind, so off to the Memory Hole you go, who has any use for your accurate perspective?

Except me.

"Then we start discussing not trading with the enemy. Well isn’t that what sanctions are all about? So why would we support not building a railroad or not taking shiploads of goods? To put sanctions on people? Isn’t it the people that suffer when sanctions are implemented?"

You may be confusing a Blockade with Sanctions. You may be confusing a criminal wielding the power of law to force people to obey without question, such as an "import duty" or "excise tax" with a number of individuals who agree voluntarily to stop buying from a specific trader of stolen property.

How about this angle: Suppose the porch sitter down the street has a real good deal on a new computer for sale to you and now you can get a brand new one for 10 times the cost or the brand new one for 1 tenth the cost from the porch sitter down the street. This has nothing to do with, or it has everything to do with, a law enforced by someone somewhere and that explains the price difference.

Who cares, the price is right?

How about this angle: Your local abortionist, rushing 100 "patients" through the revolving doors per day, who also sells counterfeit birth control pills, and rubbers with holes in them, is now selling the same brand new computer for 1 tenth the cost charged by the porch sitter down the street.

The price is even righter.

You have the choice in that case. Your choices may be affected by an edict where a Black Market is created or subsidized or on some way causing the very wide spread of prices available to you, and if just don't care, about anything but the price, then it is very reasonable, and better for you, to buy the least costly item sold by those seller in that "free" market.

The "good doctor" may be making a killing on his computer sales and since abortions are so costly these days, having to give them away, his business stays afloat with your help.

So you don't want to be selective in who you trade with then?

"And I suppose I am wrong because I thought you thought there could be a place of absolute equity. That is what I thought."

My wife is just now coming around to realizing the facts as I've been reporting them to her for years. Just the other day she says "We really do all work for the banks."

We were in mixed company at the time. I repeat, yes, of course, who else can write a check for as much as everyone else combined?

They can buy world wars. Can you?

Equity can still be shared among free traders. We don't have to be at each other's throats as ordered - without question.

"I gave you quotes and also gave you the link and the time."

Ok, so that falls into the battle of the statistics, and I can't confirm nor deny those statistics as to accuracy in the question asked nor the answer found. There is a genuine mathematical use in statistics so as to accurately know the facts desired to be known, and that same tool can be employed by people to deceive targeted victims. Which is the case when speaking about John Pilger? Which is the case when speaking about Piers Morgan?

John Pilger spent his life, is now spending his life, and probably will continue to spend his life, exposing the abuses of government, and that includes abuses by any government, but which ones are on "our" side? Which governments allow John Pilger to witness the abuses? If there is a Journalist who reports the accurate facts in China, then there is one, or Russia. Solzhenitsyn is no longer alive, so who in Russia?

Here is a reporter in China:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF16Dj01.html

No, it turns out that Henry Liu is based in New York.

Billions of people in China, the emerging Leaders of the "free" world, and who is reporting the facts on China?

How about Pepe Escobar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVYC1df1Meg

Note the use of the word "Equitable" at first and then the use of the word "Inequality".

Failure to speak the same language is only a failure for those who desire accurate, or honest, communication. It is not at all a failure, it is in fact a success, to miscommunication when the goal is deception, and one knows better and the target is deceived.

Unfortunately human action is driven by falsehood currently.

Garbage in = garbage out. Can you find the key words that offer some semblance of warning as to what may be happening?

World Reserve Currency Power moving to China.

Fact or fiction?

What does it mean?

If it means what I know it means, then we in America will have a choice, we can continue to obey the Legal Criminals, by sharing our abject belief in falsehood, participate and lose World War III, and then pay the bills after the war is over, or we opt out and then having opted out, we return to something resembling "rule of law", "due process", where each individual is equal in terms of how much political power is taken from victims by legal criminals, which is a minimum, because we finally realize that inequality in law is unaffordable, unsustainable, and equity in trading is precisely the same thing.

Learn better or pay the cost.

"Why do you insist on saying I don’t like people."

Your reference to PINK, and your insistence that you are referring to some thing, not people, is unreasonable. I thought you figured this out awhile ago, but it persists - apparently. Things cannot be held accountable for the actions of people, so why do you express negative viewpoints targeting this PINK thing?

Set me straight - please.

"I do not like what the involuntary left has done to those people."

That is unreasonable. The porch sitters are not guilty of receiving stolen property? How are the porch sitters not then exactly those people who constitute the involuntary left?

Poor, poor, Ben Bernanke, the biggest porch sitter on the planet, he is so poor, having to shuffle on down to the welfare office and collect his welfare check, and then shuffle on down to the bank and cash it.

Oh, but Ben isn't on the left!

Ooooops

"I think her family should take care of her."

So what happens if we all get ready to have in place a better money by July 4th of this year, and on that day we use it. No longer are we all working for Ben as Ben is spending his welfare check on buying World War III, and moving his fellow porch sitters to China.

What happens when the girl with the poor family keep what they earn and are only investing in a government of their choosing?

Hell brakes loose?

"At the same time they will let the non violent and violent criminals out of the prisons and they will turn on those of us who paid to keep them locked up and radicallized."

You are not up to speed. The worst of the evil people hire themselves into public office, and then they hire the most violent to keep the victims powerless. Who do you think they are finding to be TSA agents? What do you think they are doing in The School of the Americas? Some people, not many, are born to torture, others have that talent beat into them. The school shooters fall from trees? The theater shooters are accidents, or mere vehicles for guns to find and then the guns use those well trained criminals to abuse?

"That is why I am afraid. And when I hear left speak those are the things that I fear."

You can keep on joining the criminals with genuine left leaning, honest, productive people together in one prejudice pile of consistent mush, blend them in a blender, keep it up. If you do that then you really can't expect anyone else to listen to your spiritual viewpoint, Golden Rule and all, since you are asking for them to group you in the same heap as the End Timers who are doing everything within their power to light the fuse on World War III in the Middle East.

Don't confuse me with anyone who would do to you as you are now doing to everyone leaning left, because I know better, and I don't do that, but you are doing what you are doing, and other people will do what other people will do, and it may be a good idea to know this, and not to ignore this that you are doing right now.

"I don’t have a good answer. I asked if he was neutral. It seems to me that the left is trying to disarm us. Did he speak out when Australia was disarmed?"

Neutral on disarming innocent people may not be the case with John Pilger, but his track record is such that he is arming the victims with facts, which is relatively disarming the Legal Criminals who are using deception as a weapon of mass destruction.

The context of my name dropping, throwing John Pilger into the ring, was such that having no idea, in my own mind, as to what John Pilger thinks, or does not think, about disarming innocent people (a.k.a. "Gun Control"), only confirms the value of my offering of someone who is closer to neutral than, say, Janet Reno.

Speaking of welfare recipient.

"It just seems like he is only telling one side of the story."

Is the side he is telling accurate or false, and if only false by omission, not commission, then is that at least something less than abject belief in falsehood without question, and something less than willful deception so as to increase the pile of tortured bodies already flowing rapidly into hell on Earth?

"I see deception in pointing out all the bad and nothing good. As if everything is bad, bad, bad."

That is not John Pilger. His version of successes, women's right to vote for example, may be mislead, and I agree, since I would phrase the English words in a more accurate way, in fact I have, as I report how women are no longer enforced by people with badges as the property of their owners. Women's Lib? What is in a name?

1.
Women are property
2.
Not 1

Funny, perhaps, a false step may look good, rejoice, at least until the euphoria wears off, and we find ourselves all working for the Legal Criminals at Central Bank Center. Way to go girls.

Is it not funny to blame it on the girls now?

Can I join you and blame it all on PINK?

I feel slightly better now.

"I don’t know. Why should it mess with your credibility? You gave me the link. You must think he is credible. I think you are credible, so what is the problem? Is it this forum? Is it the people on this forum who do not like John Pilger. If so, then I am inspired to ask: Why?"

Suppose that I was one part in a million or a hundred million, and it is really important that a warning about World War III goes out, reaching a minimum of listeners, who pay attention, so as to bridge the gap between left and right, and due to unintended consequences the warning is nullified before reaching the minimum?

Now you may be able to see that I too connect the dots that ought not be so readily connected?

Who said something about wanting to see the worst of it and provide for it? That is opposed to what, on the other end, care less, and hope the others take care of things?

Here have so more money, I'll work a few more hours a day, and I'll do without heat, clothes, or food, do without water, and I'll sacrifice, for the greater good?

What is the trend?

Which way is the ship going when enough people let the others take care of things; if we can pay them well enough?

"If so, then why would people discredit you by defending him?"

You discredit John Pilger, so your question is not known by you, as you do the things you do?

"But I still have a bias because of my conditioning."

"If so, then why would people discredit you by defending him?"

"But I still have a bias because of my conditioning."

"It seems to me that that is exactly what socialism does."

What is socialism? Do you mean "any cover story that covers up the crimes perpetrated by the criminals who happen to volunteer themselves into dictatorships"?

I don't know, but I keep asking.

"It seems to me that that is exactly what socialism does. But I finished watching that Indonesian link and the people are having trouble because things are being privatized instead of subsidized. It takes vast stores of power employed by a few people to subsidize things."

So John Pilger is given a different set of words to use to cover up crimes? Did he actually say that the goons doing all the slaughtering, stealing, torturing, etc. where "privatizing"?

Did John Pilger say that crime hidden behind the word "Subsidy" was better than crime hidden behind the word "Privatize"?

"Speaking of Joe Quote…I didn’t do my bookwork this week. What does that say about me?"

I trust that is says that you have time given to you and you use it as best as you can, and better than anyone can do in your shoes.

I don't think either one of us needs someone to help in blaming ourselves for missed opportunities, or mistakes, or regrets, or self doubt, but if you want to stop covering up crimes with false fronts, I think I can help.

I may be deluding myself.

"But if he chooses the wrong side, how can he be defended?"

Do unto others as you would have then do unto you?

"I can show you pictures and words…who says they are true?"

Well, there are the bodies, they are dead now, there are the people with the guns, make up your own mind. OK, how about digging a little deeper? Here is the guy ordering the deaths, see, here he is, and I'll ask him a few questions. There you go, see, there is the answer offered by the guy ordering the deaths. Make up your own mind.

"Now to me that is a right leaning concept. All are equal in the eyes of the law. Justice. True Justice. And what I think is the left says that but then when it is implemented you get things like ACORN; Social Security; Obamacare"

No, actually Trial by Jury was working imperfectly, but the counterfeit version of Justice is often mistook for the imperfect, but genuine, version. So you are doing the bait and switch in this case. You bait with the concept of equal treatment according to a mutually beneficial agreement, or law, and then you drop that completely, and then you change the subject to a subject that is completely opposite, and you introduce crime made legal, and you claim that they are connected somehow?

You are making the connection. Who else is making the connection between the genuine article and the counterfeit version, and doing so repeatedly, over and over again, as if repetition will make the false connection real?

"Did I shoot the messanger?"

I wish John Pilger was able to answer your question personally, and if you want I can try to get him to answer an e-mail of something, and I can point him to this discussion.

Don't make more of that last sentence than it is, I have not yet tried to e-mail John Pilger. I've tried to reach Lew Rockwell, Gary North, Alex Jones, others, but not John Pilger.

Take care bear and thanks again.

Joe