Originally posted by mrmulder
Originally posted by Nerdling
"He's a good man, he's been on the mark sometimes"
Yeah, hence the word sometimes. Meaning he's not always right. Like I said, Mike Ruppert has been more accurate than he has.
Ruppert lost me when he went with this Club of Rome, limits to growth, peak oil scam. The facts do not support his statistics, but it is very
convenient to an oil market that is a cartel such as diamonds are a cartel. It requires concerted theories such as this to support the pricing rip
offs. The fact of oil shortfalls projected is a matter of reduced reinvestment in ongoing capacity, the phony war syndrome, and other politics. It is
not due to shortfalls in actual reserve capacity, even in less productive wells that renew their output with proper drill bits, the butterfly bit for
Now when Ruppert talks about Gary Webb and puts his papal imprimatur upon the suicide story, who would not be skeptical? The atmosphere indicates
anything but suicide, we are talking about a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was blackballed by doing the job that others shun, investigative
stories. He was starting to ask the right kinds of questions, at least from the station of the very reasons why we have a first amendment, to track,
trace, and expose government corruption. There are many well documented sources in an Alex Jones story. Granted his editorial opinion
outrage, hence the moniker "demogogue," appears. Yet while the mainstream media simply puts their approval upon outrageous stories that "mercury is
good for you, it is nutritious," despite years of science to the contrary, Alex goes into a rant. Why does he need to rant? Because people are sheep,
yuppies who think they are "safe," and do not want to rock a boat that is already sunk.
No Ruppert is with the go to sleep crowd, more than he is with the wake up crowd. Alex Jones is fully open to these stories that have no editorial
opinion, or that have approval for things that we should consider an outrage, and unacceptable for a free people.
Sorry to disappoint you, but read Ruppert and look at his editorial opinion. It is sad, but the powers that be, must have got to him. So if you like
what he has to say, just go watch Bill O'Reilley because his editorial position
is almost identical, at least for some things, although the
content of the stories from one to the other is different. Fox deals with superficial stories, Ruppert deals with deeper things. But editorially there
is there is a trend to agreement with what requires deeper investigation.
No Ruppert lost me for many things he has to say, although he is still an interesting data source for content. Tread wisely, and you may come to the
[edit on 21-12-2004 by SkipShipman]