David Icke is full of horse poo.

reply to post by DocDoyle


Well I'm human and consider myself a pretty decent person, but I for one can not relate to people like Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, George Bush & Dick Cheney etc. So it wouldn't surprise me if they really were some kind of sub species. It would certainly explain a lot.

The thing is... and I've said this before. Icke takes old philosophies, classical existential theories and recites them as truth... fact. He's intelligent but doesn't give the old philosophers credit... or not that I've seen.
Ok the reptilian thing is modern but his existential/perception ideas are old as the hills.

It's like he did A Level psychology and came out of the class saying "Yep, that's fact."
I really really respect what he does though... he's opening minds which is ok I guess.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Im sorry but your an idiot, cause you have all the answers right? You know nothing my fiend, nothing..

His theories arent new because thats the way things are, its no coincidence that thousands of people resonate with his info. Nothing is nearly as random as it first seems, even the reptilian angle is not new its thousands of years old. His research is extensive and he states clearly numerous times "research it for yourself, dont take my word for anything".

As for being Anti-Semitic anyone who has his material will know that this is not the case.

reply to post by Ignorance Denied


Based off your spelling and grammar- You're not the one who should be calling idiot.

You're Irish, English is your first language. Learn it.

Ozweatherman makes good points; great points I'd say.

He's never claimed to "Know all the answers".
Somehow I find it hard to believe Icke is "Exposing" a group of aliens, millions of years ahead of us technologically, who rule "Most" of our planet already.

Ok for starters this thread is just manifesting hatred so well done OP for that, you must feel real great about yourself

Now David Icke provides us with a wealth of information that you can listen to or not, take onboard and investigate yourself if you like, as did the OP.
Now if you think hes full of horse poo, then well i guess thats your opinion, and we all will have a different view of his findings.
So you knew what the repurcussions would be, and decided to post anyway.

Don't run people down for thinking and speaking differently, thats why this world is going to #!

Hi everyone

I too had the pleasure of seeing David in Melbourne in April, I have the 7 hour dvd of that day if anyone one would like a copy u2u me and I could possibly burn you one to share yourself.

Being my own person, I went along conscious of the basic fact I could choose what I wanted to make of his seminar. Being my own person, I am aware opinions are many but not an obligation, and thus I listened objectively, met some awesome people and had Good Times and enjoyed myself as I like to do with everything I do.

The layers of the NWO conspiracies are many, so to me deciding what’s true or false is a MOOT exercise at an event like this or often generally. It’s not important and the focus should be on your personal journeys after that.

David Icke's seminars today are not just NWO conspiracy stuff anymore. He talks about dimensional energies, emotional, physical and spiritual health, the bigger picture of life as a whole and his theory on how that ties into nwo agendas, reptilies etc. It’s quite the holistic picture he offers now, something for everyone to relate to. Not just conspiracy theory buffs, but the spiritually minded and newbies to the subject matter.

If you are interested in hearing what he has to say David Icke in snippets on the net gets lost in translation. A full seminar is the way to go because you get his whole journey. He has had an interesting time and I have not spent 20 years flying all over researching what he has, and I am thankful he shares his experiences and he presents it really well.

Unlike the impressions/intentions of the OP and the fellow negative posters, thankfully, there are many people out there who understand the personal and universal importance of each of us moving forward in the most benevolent, proactive way for all involved, being an honourable, benevolent and respectful person and what putting out LOVE and positive thoughts, actions and words accomplishes. Go TEAM

For those who intend on sharing negative words, thoughts and actions I refer you to the Water Crystals photographed by Dr. Masaru Emoto ,( as we are 65% water in body and our brain is 80% water ) for a sneek peak of how you resonate with your thoughts, actions and words, and remind you that you really should treat yourself better than that.

www.youtube.com...

Have the best day

themuse

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Im sorry but your an idiot, cause you have all the answers right? You know nothing my fiend, nothing..

Well sorry for having an opinion that is different to yours. Since when does having a different point of view, give you the right to class someone has a hater?

Half of you need to grow up and if you're going to object to what I post, try attacking my information rather than labelling me simply as a hater.

Most of you I notice are newer memebers, and I hope this isnt the way in which ATS is going, because its supposed to be a place where people can have discussion without pathetic comments.

So sorry Ive offended so many people with my opinion.....so sorry you think Im idiot, because I have a different opinion, so sorry I provided information which contradicts some of David Ickes theories....

In fact Im not sorry...Im glad, and happy that I posted this, it justs goes to show the intellect and attitude of a few of David Ickes supporters. Normally I wouldnt say that, but after reading the last few pages of comments, Im entitled to label YOU too.



[edit on 21/7/2009 by OzWeatherman]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Im sorry but your an idiot, cause you have all the answers right? You know nothing my fiend, nothing..

Well sorry for having an opinion that is different to yours. Since when does having a different point of view, give you the right to class someone has a hater?

Half of you need to grow up and if you're going to object to what I post, try attacking my information rather than labelling me simply as a hater.

Most of you I notice are newer memebers, and I hope this isnt the way in which ATS is going, because its supposed to be a place where people can have discussion without pathetic comments.

So sorry Ive offended so many people with my opinion.....so sorry you think Im idiot, because I have a different opinion, so sorry I provided information which contradicts some of David Ickes theories....

In fact Im not sorry...Im glad, and happy that I posted this, it justs goes to show the intellect and attitude of a few of David Ickes supporters. Normally I wouldnt say that, but after reading the last few pages of comments, Im entitled to label YOU too.

People dont think you are an idiot because you have a differant opinion, they think you are an idiot for trying to rubbish someone you clearly know nothing about. Fair enough say attack your evidence and not you, what evidence?

Call someone who is trying to help people "full of horse poo" and then you start crying when someone calls you and idiot? Get over it, David Icke did.

Sounds very much as if Icke has been exposing too much truth again.

It always brings the character assassins out of their caves, spitting and whining

Anyway, so Who/What has Icke exposed lately, to have caused this little dummy spit ?

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Im sorry but your an idiot, cause you have all the answers right? You know nothing my fiend, nothing..

Well sorry for having an opinion that is different to yours. Since when does having a different point of view, give you the right to class someone has a hater?

Half of you need to grow up and if you're going to object to what I post, try attacking my information rather than labelling me simply as a hater.

Most of you I notice are newer memebers, and I hope this isnt the way in which ATS is going, because its supposed to be a place where people can have discussion without pathetic comments.

So sorry Ive offended so many people with my opinion.....so sorry you think Im idiot, because I have a different opinion, so sorry I provided information which contradicts some of David Ickes theories....

In fact Im not sorry...Im glad, and happy that I posted this, it justs goes to show the intellect and attitude of a few of David Ickes supporters. Normally I wouldnt say that, but after reading the last few pages of comments, Im entitled to label YOU too.

People dont think you are an idiot because you have a differant opinion, they think you are an idiot for trying to rubbish someone you clearly know nothing about. Fair enough say attack your evidence and not you, what evidence?

Call someone who is trying to help people "full of horse poo" and then you start crying when someone calls you and idiot? Get over it, David Icke did.

I have been listening a lot to David Icke Lately and you know what a lot
of it rings true and makes total sense to me........

The idea of a move towards a global government and how the few are
controlling the many......

Can't help thinking of the Lisbon treaty and the way us Irish voted NO
already but there gonna keep coming back until we vote YES. Frances
president Sarcosi more or less intructed Cowan that hed better get a YES
vote the next time.....

So please listen more closely to David Icke and remember we just cant
'see the bars' !!

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Hello. I'm not sticking up for David here, though I know from experience that HE is telling the truth. As far as his sources for history, I believe the only history that can be verified is from those who are living. Anything beyond those accounts of people who are alive is nothing more then guessing. That being said, I was curious if you ever go into the history portion of wikipedia?

The history "tab" is where you can go to see how the actual article presented on the subject was formulated. This page alone is probably better then the actual article because you usually find that the contributions of the article are generally made by only a small amount of people that are at odds over what should be presented. Not only are the sources in dispute, but it is really a "he said, she said" argument.

Here is a quote from the history which links to the discussion section of the page you directed us to, and mind you, it is about as wrought with disagreement as people are here.

This is a argument between a few of the editors of the article.

First, wikipedia is not about truth. Were that I could wave a magic wand and change several fundamental policies here, I would put a lot more emphasis on the value of truth. But in the end wikipedia is about verifiability using particular kinds of sources. Predominantly, a reliance on second or third person accounts of events and opinions. What you are doing is not "new research" but "original research." The idea here is that you are creating a new idea by extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say. You can't do that here. Your best bet is to find a reliable sources, that discuses this issues directly and that does not require you to synthesize multiple sources. Start there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So I must conclude firstly, that READING the official record, the congressional record - which is a SINGLE SOURCE and then directly quoting from it is considered 'original research' especially when it conflicts with misinformation that has already been accepted as truth. secondly that directly quoting from the congressional record is creating new ideas and extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say ( despite the FACT I provided direct quotes you call it extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say ) Thirdly, that the CR is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE NOR A VERIFIABLE SOURCE - despite being advised in the past the CR is the BEST source - lastly, and is completely evident by the previous three items, wikipedia is not about truth - wonderful - it seems to me that since I went and obtained the actual cr for the day in question, posted it on the internet it is all the sudden unreliable; - outrageous - just what do you suppose my agenda is? The entry in question stated somthing that completely contradicts the cr, I made an attempt to correct the entry so that readers of wikipedia might correct information and I get this royal screw around and told my resrearch is no good, my copy of the cr is unreliable and my direct quotes from it are "extending and synthesizing multiple primary sources beyond what they originally say" this is craziness as the first revrter of my edit said craziness - normally I would not really give a crap but the article in question is about the federal reserve of the US and the wikipedia page for the fed is simply wrong in saying that powers were taken from the banks and given to the people in the version passed by congress and it is not true - and I have shown you that it is not true but truth is not the issue with wikipedia I have just learned - Telling me to get a single source tells me that you have not even looked at what I have done - tell me why the CR is not a single source - I have been accused of using multiple sources tell me how the CR is multiple sources - please defend that - Mr.P Mrpoisson (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, just wanted to make you aware of that section if you were not ,as well as the other readers of wiki's. I know quite a few of us will site wiki without going any further, at least, I can say that for myself. It was nice to find this section as it kept me in check and taught me to ALWAYS check my sources realizing everything is perspective.

Peace

Sorry edit for "discussion tab" which is linked under the history tab.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]