It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is anyone else tired of Coast to Coast AM's militaristic/nationalistic bullcrap?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:08 PM

Hadn't noticed it. Thoguht it was just respect for someone putting their life on the line for the concept of defending you and I. (whether they're actually doing it, i know different people have different opinions on that matter) ...

Most military people I have known have been incredibly ignorant, arrogant and vengeful. That is why I generally don't respect them.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by m1991

It seems like a person has to really sift through the material more these days to get to the one or two truly informative, interesting, and/or new ideas. Most of the stuff that I drew me to join the monthly C2C subscription was older stuff, and the new shows just feel like they are running out of material. Or maybe I know more (?) I don't know.

I like George Noory and Art Bell for the most part, but I usually end up shutting off the shows led by Ian Punnet. He just seems like he doesn't listen to the guests very he is either thinking about what he is going to say next or like he has a terrible attention deficit problem. I just can't usually make it all the way through his shows.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by minesweeper
reply to post by imitator

Did wikileaks provide government leader head documents or was this just here say? I ask cause I haven’t heard of this before and I wasn’t really aware of an conspiracies about the gulf war other than post war illnesses. Sounds interesting, I’d hate to think that the last legitimate war we’ve been involved in was WW2. By the way love your avatar.

To be honest I was having a bad night when I posted that, c2c threw me into bad mood. Anyway I do support the military, as long as they don't call me a moron for being a conspiracy theorist!

It was a real document, the US was aware of the Kuwait situation before the invasion, the US message was we don't care what you do or something along those lines, of course they kept this info classified and demonized Saddam afterwords. I'll see if I can find that wiki document...

Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.

Apparently someone deleted that wiki leak.... no surprise there, I'm sure there are several copies of it on the web somewhere. The US Ambassador basically said we don't care what you do with Arabs.

edit on 15-8-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:27 AM
Coast to coast AM is government correct?
I've always thought they were shills, when did you start taking them seriously?

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by m1991

Hey m1991, you captured my feelings exactly on this issue.

Now, before anybody misunderstands, let me say that I have the highest respect for the men & women who serve in the military - past & present. I believe that the majority of them are responsibly dedicating themselves to a concept of liberty and freedom that inspires a sense of sacrifice beyond an ordinary level of comprehension, and I commend and thank them for that. It isn't that America is "more important" than other countries, but the principles and virtues of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness stand head and shoulders above what most other countries offer their citizens and it grieves most Americans that people are denied this basic God given right of existence.

That being said, unfortunately, the majority of politicians throughout the world, (yes, including the U.S.) are a corrupt bunch of power hungry, greedy, manipulative, self-serving, small minded little freaks with egos far too large to fit within their own dysfunctional heads. Sadly, that's where the seeds of war, fear, manipulation and control originate. The people at the top of the "military industrial complex" are part of this system, but your average patriotic soldier is not.

Now, when I heard I. Punnett say that he considered it unpatriotic and anti-American to question the government's account of the B. Laden raid, I felt exactly the same as you did and can't even tell you in a polite forum such as this, what I yelled at the radio. I began to think, who is this guy to say we should just accept an account as truth when the government hasn't even provided a shred of proof that it ever occurred in the manner in which their ever changing stories have indicated. To insinuate that this carries any disrespect for the Navy Seals is confusing two entirely separate issues. I don't remember any Navy Seal coming forward with testimony as to what actually happened in the B. Laden raid, but I do remember a lot of staged and phony photographs and inconsistent reports of what really happened direct from the mouths of the usual lying political publicity machine. What with the loss of the Navy Seals, we probably now will never know. As previously stated, I have a great deal of respect for them and am saddened by their loss, but to claim as Ian did, that to question the story is to disrespect the Navy Seals is reprehensible and frankly - idiotic!

If Ian feels that the government shouldn't be questioned and challenged on this issue, maybe he would be happier in a socialist country than here in America where the freedom of speech and the right to raise such questions is not only accepted and respected, but actually encouraged by most rational and honest people.

Ok, I feel better, now that I've vented.

Suffice it to say that Ian could learn a lot from Mr. Art Bell who had the most amazing ability to at least, (as another comment here has said), to explore the "what if?" and treat people with respect even if his viewpoint was somewhat different. Oh my, I didn't realize until just now, how much I miss Art Bell! May God bless you and your family Art for all those wonderful nights of mysterious entertainment and exploration you gave us from out there in the "high desert". I miss you.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:22 AM
Star and THANK YOU Shaka. It pleases me to know someone else was cursing out Ian's name at that time. I was soooo mad at him!

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Who is 'we'?

Are you military man? I doubt you are.

Why don't you go down to the VA and tell some of those men they weren't in a war. Tell them how being a civilian you know all about war and how they weren't in one. Then tell us how that goes over (once you are all healed up of course).

Much as I dislike the "oh yeah" attitude of this post, there is a grain of truth to what he says. Most of the guys who serve in the military do not know they have been hoodwinked until they get there and see what is actually going on. Many of the guys going into the military today are doing so because it is the only way for them to earn a decent income. Still others yet cling to the idea that we are promoting freedom, instead of the reality that we are there militarily to further corporate interests. This may not have been too bad a motivation in the early days of war but now that all these same corporations have removed their jobs from our shore, this is a dedication which is obviously one sided now.

Since we have a volunteer army these days - because the military is now managing us better than say the days of Viet Nam - ruining the economy results in more volunteers for the armed services.

These folks are being manipulated and I feel they should be held blameless. This by no means releases the upper echelon military and political and corporate guys from their guilt by any stretch of the imagination.

Now the OP was about C2C so let's get back to that. Anytime anyone organizes in any way to let people hear the truth, they will be co-opted by government infiltration. It was like that in the 60's and we have seen that they are still playing that game with the new non-existent boogey man; the terrorists. I left Alex Jone's sight because I kept seeing evidence that he had been co-opted as well.

If you control both sides of an argument, it is simple to render the argument impotent, and make it sound silly. IMO these guys are merely damage control for the system itself.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:04 AM
that's what they do. that's all they do. you don't think they are gonna give you the truth do you? the truth is just waaayyyy too boring, so they have to make it a war or harry potter movie.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:46 AM
I stopped listening to C2C for that very reason, a long time ago.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by m1991

Personally, I find that the show has bent a bit towards the mainstream... which is disappointing. But I don't see the militarism and I have no problem with nationalism whatsoever.

What can I say... I like red meats, fat ceegars, cold beer, subjects of the paranormal and being an American.

My problem with nationalism is that imo it's wrong to consider people of your own nation more important than other people. It's basically the same conceptually as racism and it's one of the main reasons war exists. There's no logical reason to consider Americans more important than Europeans or Africans or whatever. At least if you're talking about your family and putting them first it makes sense based on the fact they are biologically programmed to care more about you.

With that said, there's nothing wrong with loving your country. I just don't think any country is worth dying or killing for. Culture is great and all but in the end it's a material thing.

I agree. Consider these quotes about how stupid patriotism is:

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

“Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.”
- Bertrand Russell

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”
- Oscar Wilde

“Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?”
- Blaise Pascal

“Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, and conscience, and a slavish enthralment to those in power.”
- Leo Tolstoy

Every country has a different set of pros and cons. The US has clean air, clean water, clean land, clean national parks, high quality infrastructure, polite drivers, etc. But on the other hand, it has the highest mental illness rates in the industrialized world, highest prison population, highest rates of obesity, most expensive healthcare in the world, high cost of living, huge lack of human connection (neighbors don't usually talk to each other or invite each other over), and a loneliness epidemic where millions of males can't get any dates or female companionship!

Here's a lesson for you from my Expat Advisor who has lived long-term in 9 countries and speaks 10 languages:

"No country has it all, and most countries are heavily weighed in one direction and severely poor in another area. Countries that are materially rich are poor spiritually and socially. Countries with the best jobs opportunities cannot usually provide too many gorgeous dates. Countries with the most beautiful women have bad economies and rotten politics. It, therefore, stands to reason that in order to have it all, living in more than one country is often a necessity."
- Ladislav, Expat and Cultural Advisor of

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Exuberant1

Who is 'we'?

Are you military man? I doubt you are.

Why don't you go down to the VA and tell some of those men they weren't in a war. Tell them how being a civilian you know all about war and how they weren't in one. Then tell us how that goes over (once you are all healed up of course).

Much as I dislike the "oh yeah" attitude of this post, there is a grain of truth to what he says. Most of the guys who serve in the military do not know they have been hoodwinked until they get there and see what is actually going on. Many of the guys going into the military today are doing so because it is the only way for them to earn a decent income. Still others yet cling to the idea that we are promoting freedom, instead of the reality that we are there militarily to further corporate interests. This may not have been too bad a motivation in the early days of war but now that all these same corporations have removed their jobs from our shore, this is a dedication which is obviously one sided now.

What I've never understood is: What does it matter what kind of government we have? Governments are all no different from the mafia. As long as you obey laws and don't get in the way, government will leave you alone. It's like that in any country, including the US. But the US has MORE laws and regulations than other countries do, not less. So how is it more free?

Also, MOST of our loss of freedom comes from our jobs, marriage and children, which ENSLAVE us and tie us down into servitude MORE than anything else does! That's where the real loss of freedom comes from. So why this focus on government or even the Illuminati? It doesn't make sense.

Of the three - job, marriage, and children - children enslave the most. While you can quit your job and marriage, you can't quit your children, unless you abandon them or give them up for adoption. So when you have children, you are forced to give up the rest of your life in servitude to them and forget everything else in your life. In return, you get nothing for it. Children are the biggest enslavement of all, not government or Illuminati. I know sounds bad, but it's true.

Given these two choices:
- Be happy and free but incur the disapproval of everyone
- Be unhappy and miserable with the approval of everyone

I'd much rather choose the former. Wouldn't you?

edit on 20-5-2012 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by jimmyx

If you do join their club, you get the show podcasted to your itunes, completely commercial free. Im not trying to sell it, but if your going to listen at all, that would be the way to go. And an hour is 38 minutes... Ive checked.

My rundown:

George Noory: is completely unbiased in interviews, and treats everybody seriously. Which is why he takes a lot of flak. I might not be a huge fan of him, but you got to give him credit. I think he purposely does this so that we have to figure out for ourselves if the guest is for real or BS. He also fields a lot of email questions without always listening to the guest.
Also, I do enjoy the news segments he does at the beginning.

Ian Punnnit: If I know hes hosting I dont bother listening. Ive heard enough half an hour monologues about his twitter and personal life to last a lifetime.

John B Wells: Usually has interesting guests, he lets people talk and doesnt always put much into the conversation. Its refreshing at times... but he can also be very opinionated, and will make it very clear if he has major disagreements with the guests views. This can be tiring. Still, hes my preferred host.

Overall, the show has kinda run out of a lot of steam... I used to be glued to almost every episode, now Im lucky if theres 1 or 2 a week that really catches my interest. Still, for some reason I keep listening cause it is entertaining most of the time.

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:26 PM
If you hate Ian Punnett too, copy and paste the letter below to the email addresses below:


Re: Complaints from many re: Ian's behavior in the 9/11 debate Aug 2010

Dear Coast to Coast management,

On behalf of many 9/11 debate fans, I believe I speak for most of them in this letter below:

I would like to bring some legitimate complaints to you regarding the behavior of host Ian Punnett during the 9/11 debate on August 21.

If you look at all the comments in the 11 parts on YouTube of that debate, you will see that virtually everyone complained about Ian Punnett's performance as host. Here is the link to see them:

Part 1 of 11:

If you read the comments on all 11 parts on YouTube, you will notice that everyone complained about Ian and the comments about his performance are all negative. And if you listen to the whole debate, you will understand why. Ian was obstructive in many ways, as well as very UNfair and UNreasonable toward Richard Gage. He was making very UNrealistic demands and putting Gage on the defensive for no valid reason. This became very annoying after a while and was highly obstructive and disruptive to the flow of the debate.

I eventually felt a headache and stomach ache coming on while listening to him. His voice became a disruptive presence to the debate that did not really even belong in it. It did not add anything to the debate, but was obstructive to the flow of it. Ian does not carry the flow of it well like George Noory does. Moreover, his behavior crossed the line numerous times in several ways (see examples below).

Therefore, it was a very poor choice and blunder on the part of Coast to Coast to have him moderate this debate.

Here are some key examples of Ian's obstructive behavior during this debate:

For instance, Ian kept insinuating that Gage was copping out because he would not name exactly WHO planned the 9/11 attacks and planted the thermite in the WTC. Yet any listener could tell that it was IAN who didn't know what he was talking about. Use common sense here.

Richard Gage does not claim to be an omnipotent mind reader with all the answers. He never claimed that. His position all along, which is clear from ALL his interviews and lectures, is that the hypothesis of the official story does NOT FIT the data, facts and evidence. He has made that very very clear and unambiguous.

Therefore, for Ian to demand that Gage name all the names of those guilty and responsible is unreasonable, unrealistic and ignorant as well.

Now, if Ian had asked Gage to do this just once, it would have been a normal thing. But where he crossed the line is when he constantly hounded Gage about it over and over again throughout the debate, after Gage made his position very CLEAR and explained why he could not name names. That was definitely CROSSING THE LINE! For sure.

If you listen to the whole debate at the link above or through your own site, you'll see exactly what I mean. Ian lacked simple common sense and courtesy. He did not make sense and was pushing his opinions onto it which obstructed it, becoming a bad influence himself. People could see that Ian didn't know what he was talking about (which is evident from all the YouTube comments) yet Ian wouldn't go away and kept meddling, thus becoming a hindrance to the debate. No host should be like that.

If you want someone to name names and speculate on who did it, you should bring Alex Jones on the show instead. He is the type of person who would do that. But not Gage.

Another example was when Ian demanded that Gage declare whether Larry Silverstein was guilty and "in on it" or not. When Gage refused to speculate on reasonable grounds, Ian acted like there was something wrong with Gage, and insinuated that he was being evasive, when in fact it was IAN who had the problem and was in the wrong, not Gage. That was so obvious to everyone. (except to Ian of course) Gage was making sense but Ian failed to understand this for some reason, and thus falsely accused Gage in the wrong way.

Overall, Ian's performance was an embarassment to Coast to Coast, and an obstruction to the debate. I don't know why you even hired him. There are plenty of people out there who would have done a better job. Ian's behavior was ignorant, annoying and lacking in common sense. He does NOT add to the show like Noory does. Noory, on the other hand, ADDS energy to the FLOW of his interviews and contributes to them. That makes him a great interviewer. But Ian OBSTRUCTS the interviews and the flow of them. That's a big difference.


posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:26 PM
Continued from previous post:

Look, we all know that a good host is able to connect with others and bring out the best in them (like George Noory does). He can put himself on the same wavelength as his guests. But Ian was clearly in his own wavelength that was disconnected from others. It's a big mistake to hire a host who is on another wavelength that cannot relate or understand to others. BIG mistake. Ian is simply a bad fit, even he means well.

Think about it. Listen to the debate yourself and you will see what I mean. His presence was highly obstructive to the flow of the interview.

Thanks for your attention.

A concerned fan

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:27 PM
I stopped listening regularly after Noory took over. For pretty much the same reasons, actually..

The show is less about the paranormal and more like a dissemination outlet for WorldNet Daily. The coup by ClearChannel has been less than subtle. It is now just another cog in the Neocon propaganda machine.

The only time I listen anymore are the shows hosted by Knapp who really does a great job of capturing the spirit that was pre-ClearChannel Coast to Coast AM.

If anyone is looking for a serious take on the Paranormal I would recommend The Paracast on streaming. You will find guests such as Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallee, Richard Dolan and the like. Occasionally they throw in less than scrupulous guests such as Greer but really ask uncomfortable questions which is sorely lacking in Snoory Land.

Great show!..

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in