John B. Wells

[SaucyRossy]

RedMichael, why don't you just admit that it's his politics you don't like? At least it would be more honest.

Listen. I could care less what his politics are. Left right whatever. It's that all he talks about is POLITICS.
ITs annoying. And yes NWO/Illuminati shows end up being about politics.

[awake]

This may not be saying much but Wells is miles above Noory as a host. Moreover those of you trashing Wells on here only serve to elevate Noory's worth. Noory doesn't deserve to be in radio with his poor attention span and lack of creative thought, Wells does! Period.

It's not a zero-sum game in which thinking negatively about Wells raises the "Q" score of Noory.  They both SUCK ASS for entirely different reasons.


And Wells did say, on three continuous shows, that SandyHook was likely a false flag operation and that he wasn't sure anyone died.  If you haven't heard it then maybe make some effort to find it before the skeptical posts on the matter.  It's not as though it couldn't be googled with about 5 minutes of effort.  Additionally, you aren't the first wingnut to come in here with this line, did you take the time to skim past posts at all? 

[Quick Karl]

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s speech “Citizenship in a Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910

[Nucky Nolan]

This may not be saying much but Wells is miles above Noory as a host.

I couldn't agree more. That much is obvious to most objective listeners.

[Nucky Nolan]

Listen. I could care less what his politics are. Left right whatever. It's that all he talks about is POLITICS.
ITs annoying. And yes NWO/Illuminati shows end up being about politics.

I agree with some of his views, and one would have to be insane to not worry about threats to our civil rights and Constitution. The fear-mongering is excessive, though. He should do more shows like the one he did on the MIB. He did surprisingly well during a program that had a subject that was out of his wheelhouse. Frankly, he should do all of the Friday night Coasts. His screener seems to prefer better calls. They're not all health reports and rambling nonsense. His bumper music is more obscure too.

[Nucky Nolan]

I do know that I don't like:

His tendency to pause too long for radio.
His stream-of-consciousness ramblings when he tries to formulate a question for a guest.
His willingness to immediately state that tragic events were either 'false flag operations' or didn't even happen at all.

You listed my own major complaints. The faux British accent needs to go too. As far as his legitimate concerns about Big Brother and Big Mother, more power to him, as all Americans (of all political beliefs and parties) should share his concerns. If that makes me a "wing nut" : in leftists' jaundiced eyes, so be it.

[UFQuack]

It's not a zero-sum game in which thinking negatively about Wells raises the "Q" score of Noory.

Actually you phrased my sentiment rather well especially considering that you disagree with it. Maybe it isn't a zero-sum game but it seems that way to me since I've never heard ANYONE in radio as deficient in either awareness or attention span (I'm not sure what it is) as Noory. This is why when you say Wells is as bad as Noory, I think that it cannot possibly be, the man has had other work, no body would hire him for narration if that was the case.

And Wells did say, on three continuous shows, that SandyHook was likely a false flag operation and that he wasn't sure anyone died.  If you haven't heard it then maybe make some effort to find it before the skeptical posts on the matter.  It's not as though it couldn't be googled with about 5 minutes of effort.  Additionally, you aren't the first wingnut to come in here with this line, did you take the time to skim past posts at all?

Dial it back a bit, you don't know my reasons, you don't know me and I don't know you. Anyway how do you know what Wells really believes what he's spitting out, for all we know he could just be blowing smoke up our asses talking like he does. And do you really care if he's right or wrong? Also, in order to question some things, don't you often have to take an opposing position just to test the waters? And so instead of a question, you might choose to make a statement.

But like I said people say a lot of things when they get talking, and in radio this only helps, it creates controversy, gets people listening. It's like the old saying "bad publicity is good publicity" and all that. Who cares as long as he's doing his job as host? The purpose of which is to open up a dialog and get people talking. If you have a problem with what he's saying, then perhaps you ought to call the show and set him straight, really challenge him, but be decent about it. Maybe he'll come around to seeing it your way.

I'm not ignorant I can see that many of the criticisms here of Wells are right on target, I just don't believe that ought be the whole picture as it regards his ability to host or that Wells should be a target. I think one good quality you might say about him is that he actually lets his guests and callers speak when it's their turn. That right there is something that's better than Noory.

[UFQuack]

one would have to be insane to not worry about threats to our civil rights and Constitution.

Exactly. It's more important now than ever regarding the technology that's being put into place for the purpose of monitoring everything.

[onan]

I don't think it is exceptional thought to always be wary of erosions to our freedoms. One isn't going far out on a limb to make the statement "we need to protect our freedoms."

But it is extremely important to select who argues and what arguments are used to support any position. I think wells is so off the mark on so many issues, that even if he is dead on with one or two issues, his baggage is too costly.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't think it is exceptional thought to always be wary of erosions to our freedoms. One isn't going far out on a limb to make the statement "we need to protect our freedoms."

But it is extremely important to select who argues and what arguments are used to support any position. I think wells is so off the mark on so many issues, that even if he is dead on with one or two issues, his baggage is too costly.

These are great points. 

Of course we should be vigilant, I would say more so than we have been as a nation, but too much of it falls into the category of crying wolf.  And people tune out.

For example when every single time some freak shoots up a school, another freak like Alex Jones pops up and starts screaming - with zero evidence and even before any facts come out - that it's really all just a false flag effort to take our guns away, it's incredibly damaging to those who are trying to speak on behalf of gun rights and against gun legislation that goes too far.

Not to mention creating unnecessary additional anguish for people that lost friends and family.


For these hucksters it's really just about selling geiger counters, storable food, and getting traffic to their websites.  They don't give a hoot about losing our freedoms at all.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

The faux British accent needs to go too.

I have come to like the British accent. Sometimes his shows get too serious and the accent breaks up the down mood a little and making some tea is not a bad idea-probably a better idea than fixing another glass of whiskey.

As far as the rest of Wells-he just hasn't put in the work. If you look at guys like Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, O'Reily, Beck they all have some consistent themes they work with, and yes, some original ideas and views they research and work on that give them an individual voice. Wells puts no time at all into that.  So if its right of center politics you want, why bother listening to Wells? There are plenty of better alternatives out there, even on a Saturday evening.

Wells needs to go out and write a book, maybe that will give him a voice.

[awake]

Dial it back a bit, you don't know my reasons, you don't know me and I don't know you. Anyway how do you know what Wells really believes what he's spitting out, for all we know he could just be blowing smoke up our asses talking like he does. And do you really care if he's right or wrong? Also, in order to question some things, don't you often have to take an opposing position just to test the waters? And so instead of a question, you might choose to make a statement.

But like I said people say a lot of things when they get talking, and in radio this only helps, it creates controversy, gets people listening. It's like the old saying "bad publicity is good publicity" and all that. Who cares as long as he's doing his job as host? The purpose of which is to open up a dialog and get people talking. If you have a problem with what he's saying, then perhaps you ought to call the show and set him straight, really challenge him, but be decent about it. Maybe he'll come around to seeing it your way.

I'm not ignorant I can see that many of the criticisms here of Wells are right on target, I just don't believe that ought be the whole picture as it regards his ability to host or that Wells should be a target. I think one good quality you might say about him is that he actually lets his guests and callers speak when it's their turn. That right there is something that's better than Noory.

I don't care about your reasons, and I don't care to know you.  I don't really care if Wells believes the bullshit he spews either.  What does matter is that it wasn't a "one-off" brain fart comment.  It was something Wells posited on three consecutive shows, a consistent theme.  Callers TRIED to get him to retract the original comment and he repeatedly refused.  Multiple nights, multiple requested to pull his head out of his fucking ass - same result.  So I don't care if he "believes" his own bullshit.  It's corrosive and baseless and your defending him makes me sick.

[awake]

I don't think it is exceptional thought to always be wary of erosions to our freedoms. One isn't going far out on a limb to make the statement "we need to protect our freedoms."

But it is extremely important to select who argues and what arguments are used to support any position. I think wells is so off the mark on so many issues, that even if he is dead on with one or two issues, his baggage is too costly.

I prefer vigilant rather than wary but I have to ask which freedoms you speak of. 
Voting itself is being challenged all around the country, the Michigan governor has decided that he can unilaterally take away the ability of whole cities to govern themselves, abortion rights are being stripped away and even birth control is under attack, the abuses of the FBI are legendary when comes to violating our right and protections and the NSA just does whatever it wants. 
So when do we do something about this erosion of freedom and more pointedly what do we do?  Money buys elections (in the last election the top two superpacs spent over $250,000,000 just for republican candidates - [size=78%]http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php[/size]) so "vote them out" rings hollow for me.[/size]

[/size]
It is easy to be lax, these things may not affect us or that we may not agree with the rights mentioned BUT at some point a right you do hold dear may be at threat.  If we do not stand up against these real and current attacks on our fellow citizens why should they come to our aid at our time of need.  So while I agree with "protect against the erosion of freedoms" stuff I worry that we do not notice the ground crumbling under our own feet.  I am just completely flummoxed by the whole thing. 

[onan]

I prefer vigilant rather than wary but I have to ask which freedoms you speak of. 
Voting itself is being challenged all around the country, the Michigan governor has decided that he can unilaterally take away the ability of whole cities to govern themselves, abortion rights are being stripped away and even birth control is under attack, the abuses of the FBI are legendary when comes to violating our right and protections and the NSA just does whatever it wants. 
So when do we do something about this erosion of freedom and more pointedly what do we do?  Money buys elections (in the last election the top two superpacs spent over $250,000,000 just for republican candidates - [size=78%]http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php[/size]) so "vote them out" rings hollow for me.[/size]

[/size]
It is easy to be lax, these things may not affect us or that we may not agree with the rights mentioned BUT at some point a right you do hold dear may be at threat.  If we do not stand up against these real and current attacks on our fellow citizens why should they come to our aid at our time of need.  So while I agree with "protect against the erosion of freedoms" stuff I worry that we do not notice the ground crumbling under our own feet.  I am just completely flummoxed by the whole thing. 

(in the voice of Hank Moody)

Chill muthafucka.

(end voice)

I can see how my first sentence is weak. But the second sentence brings it into clarity.

Why you are taking me to task on listing freedoms is confusing. I made no statement to suggest any freedom was safe from change or loss.

You're complaining because I used wary rather than vigilant? really?

Lemme spell it out for you. You live in the dumbest free country in the world. More than half the voting population doesn't vote. Yet the concern is for the few that can't motivate enough to change their lifestyle to get an identification card. Although I agree making voting more difficult is repellant, guess what? to many that vote, it is reasonable. But you are right and they are obviously wrong.

Abortion and birth control are both under attack. I agree, sadly however Roe V Wade was decided in the Supreme Court rather than voted on by the American citizens. I will let you decide if that is a good thing or not.

And how dare you speculate how it is easy to be lax. You have no idea how much participation anyone here has given. However you do assume it isn't much.

I think you and I are probably very similar in our political ideologies. But I certainly don't need a chastising from you.

[awake]

(in the voice of Hank Moody)

Chill muthafucka.

(end voice)

I can see how my first sentence is weak. But the second sentence brings it into clarity.

Why you are taking me to task on listing freedoms is confusing. I made no statement to suggest any freedom was safe from change or loss.

You're complaining because I used wary rather than vigilant? really?

Lemme spell it out for you. You live in the dumbest free country in the world. More than half the voting population doesn't vote. Yet the concern is for the few that can't motivate enough to change their lifestyle to get an identification card. Although I agree making voting more difficult is repellant, guess what? to many that vote, it is reasonable. But you are right and they are obviously wrong.

Abortion and birth control are both under attack. I agree, sadly however Roe V Wade was decided in the Supreme Court rather than voted on by the American citizens. I will let you decide if that is a good thing or not.

And how dare you speculate how it is easy to be lax. You have no idea how much participation anyone here has given. However you do assume it isn't much.

I think you and I are probably very similar in our political ideologies. But I certainly don't need a chastising from you.

I can see how you would read that as an attack but it was a plea.  These things keep up at night and the more I read the worse I feel about our situation in general.  I tried to use "we" to indicate, well, we... the larger "us".   


I mentioned vigilant because someone else referenced your post and stated that they used that phrase in lieu of wary, again sorry for causing you to feel badly or attacked. 


I know it's easy to be lax because again, as I was speaking of "we", I am lax.  I feel largely frozen on what might be done that is both ethical and effective.  I've been a voter registrar, I've knocked on doors in the desert sun, I've been to training on GOTV, I written letters, made calls and donated to causes I support.  BUT I fear that any and all efforts I make are easily erased by someone with a large checkbook and it breaks my heart.  If I were cynical it might be easier but as it is it just hurts.  I'm displeased with myself for causing you to feel attacked, again, sorry. 

[onan]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Unfortunately misunderstandings on the interwebs are more common than asian babe websites.

no harm meant.

[awake]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Unfortunately misunderstandings on the interwebs are more common than asian babe websites.

no harm meant.

Thanks for accepting the apology.  Hey what was website again?

[UFQuack]

I don't care about your reasons, and I don't care to know you.  I don't really care if Wells believes the bullshit he spews either.  What does matter is that it wasn't a "one-off" brain fart comment.  It was something Wells posited on three consecutive shows, a consistent theme.  Callers TRIED to get him to retract the original comment and he repeatedly refused.  Multiple nights, multiple requested to pull his head out of his fucking ass - same result.  So I don't care if he "believes" his own bullshit.  It's corrosive and baseless and your defending him makes me sick.

I didn't say it was a "one-off brain fart" dummy, you seem to be arguing the point for nothing, I said people talk. Let's just say you're a diehard lefty, right? Just admit it already. Just cut the BS and be honest about what you believe. To the contrary, what you're saying makes me sick, it's people like you that would like to cut off all freedom of speech.

While I'm at it, I might as well add that false flags are all too real and too important to ignore so when someone offers up "their theory" I'd rather let it fly high loud and clear in the air rather than stifle them or attempt to shut them up. If they're wrong, at worse it only makes them wrong, but what they ARE NOT WRONG ABOUT is to be skeptical or critical of this--the United States of America government empire that only fucking stooges will defend--and a lot of them are party loyalists to the democrat and republican parties.

That said I'm fucking sick to death of all the "honor 9/11" BS that rolls around every September since that time. I don't know if 9/11 was done on purpose, but I'll tell you this, they've used it as a pretext to build a security state, moving many departments under the DHS. So when you go spewing your hate against those who would speak out and flinging your shit like an orangutan in crummy mood against those who speak out, I'm telling you right now: You can expect your own load of shit to be thrown back into your face forcefully.

[Renaldo]

People are all up in arms over John B. Wells?

Seriously?

Stop, look, listen.

It's John B. Wells. As in, who cares, it's John B. Wells. It's like getting incensed over toothpaste.

[RealCool Daddio]

These are great points. 

Of course we should be vigilant, I would say more so than we have been as a nation, but too much of it falls into the category of crying wolf.  And people tune out.

For example when every single time some freak shoots up a school, another freak like Alex Jones pops up and starts screaming - with zero evidence and even before any facts come out - that it's really all just a false flag effort to take our guns away, it's incredibly damaging to those who are trying to speak on behalf of gun rights and against gun legislation that goes too far.

Not to mention creating unnecessary additional anguish for people that lost friends and family.


For these hucksters it's really just about selling geiger counters, storable food, and getting traffic to their websites.  They don't give a hoot about losing our freedoms at all.

Ho. Lee.  Shi...
*rubs eyes*
This post.
From Paperboy.
*refreshes screen several times*
It's about guns.  And freedoms.  And doesn't rant about Obama at all.

[attachimg=1]

[RedMichael]

While I'm at it, I might as well add that false flags are all too real and too important to ignore so when someone offers up "their theory" I'd rather let it fly high loud and clear in the air rather than stifle them or attempt to shut them up.

A false flag is when one party has an act done by another party that makes it look like a third party did the act. Sandy hook can not be a false flag because:

1) If the guy didn't kill anyone, no act was done. Therefore it isn't a false flag.
2) If the guy did kill someone but the government wasn't responsible in any way for the guy killing those kids, it wasn't a false flag.
3) If the government hired that boy to kill them just to kill them for some anti gun story, it wouldn't be a false flag.
4) the only way it would be a false flag is if the government paid the kid to kill those kids and make it look like Canada did it or if a country like Canada set up the killing to make it look like the US was responsible.
5) I just want to point out once again, if there is no one killed at Sandy hook, it can NOT be a false flag. It is impossible by the definition of false flag because there is no act committed.

That is what a false flag is. There can be a conspiracy in there somewhere but it isn't a false flag. The false flag has a definition and the crackpots have hijacked the word and are using it wrong. It makes them and especially Wells look bad because it shows a lack of the most basic research. Using a term without knowing what it means. It is not a general term either that can mean multiple things, it is rather specific. Sorry, no "Pop vs Soda" debate to it.

[Tinfoil Hat]

I happen to prefer pop.

Nice post, Red Mike!

[UFQuack]

RedMichael, you are completely wrong, by the most basic definition of false flag...

"False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

It says nothing about killing someone, the foremost thing you've got to know about false flags is deception which is implied right in the name false flag, it's false because of the attempts to deceive the people.

[Nucky Nolan]

RedMichael, you are completely wrong, by the most basic definition of false flag...

"False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

It says nothing about killing someone, the foremost thing you've got to know about false flags is deception which is implied right in the name false flag, it's false because of the attempts to deceive the people.

Operation Northwoods comes to mind. It's one of those conspiracy facts, not theories.

[Nucky Nolan]

I have come to like the British accent. Sometimes his shows get too serious and the accent breaks up the down mood a little and making some tea is not a bad idea-probably a better idea than fixing another glass of whiskey.

As far as the rest of Wells-he just hasn't put in the work. If you look at guys like Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, O'Reily, Beck they all have some consistent themes they work with, and yes, some original ideas and views they research and work on that give them an individual voice. Wells puts no time at all into that.  So if its right of center politics you want, why bother listening to Wells? There are plenty of better alternatives out there, even on a Saturday evening.

Wells needs to go out and write a book, maybe that will give him a voice.

He should try an Irish or Scottish accent. If he's brave, he'll attempt a Welsh one. I'm just not crazy about his English accent. To each their own.

As for tea and whiskey. Combine the two into something like a hot toddy. The posters on this thread might appreciate a few drinks to release tensions. On second thought, maybe not.

Love him or hate him, I don't agree with you in regards to his image. You know where he stands, and you know who he is. He's not as "shapeless" as Noory, who goes along to get along. He *does* have a voice. Most of his views are on the right side of the political spectrum, but he's not your father's conservative or Republican. He's more of a libertarian with Evangelical religious views. It's not difficult to decipher his personality, his politics (assuming it's not an act). His persona is well developed. 

[Nucky Nolan]

People are all up in arms over John B. Wells?

Seriously?

Stop, look, listen.

It's John B. Wells. As in, who cares, it's John B. Wells. It's like getting incensed over toothpaste.

You obviously haven't shopped for toothpaste lately. It's quite confusing and maddening. There are about twenty varieties of each brand. It's *very* easy to buy the wrong kind if you're not careful.

[RedMichael]

RedMichael, you are completely wrong, by the most basic definition of false flag...

"False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

It says nothing about killing someone, the foremost thing you've got to know about false flags is deception which is implied right in the name false flag, it's false because of the attempts to deceive the people.

Killing was the "act" I felt I was clear enough. The point is, what conspiracy theorists claim might have happened there does not fit the definition of a false flag or even a cover-up. Not even close. If someone thinks there is a conspiracy there, then that is what it would just be called a conspiracy. I actually think the term false flag gives it some kind of extra credibility among conspiracy theorists and that is part of why it is clinged to.

But if I put on my crazy hat for a second and believe what has been said about Sandy Hook, I would have to acknowledge that it is wrong to use that term as it is inaccurate. It just looks bad and lazy when someone in Well's position doesn't even research any of his subjects and uses terms incorrectly.

[UFQuack]

I think we're talking about two different things here...you have some points but that's not what I'm concerned with.

The "act" in this case is not an "act of murder" but rather an act of deception.

Defined in this article, 3rd paragraph..."In military terms, a false flag is any act of deception designed to make your opponent think you’re someone else."

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/21/false-flag-attacks-myth-and-reality/

If gun violence happens somewhere, pro-gun people (yes, like Alex Jones) will say it's a false flag "to make gun owners look like terrorists" or whatever. And I'm not saying that is true, I mean among all possibilities for false flags that one does seem to be a weak argument. That doesn't mean we don't have to be wary of false flags.

[awake]

I didn't say it was a "one-off brain fart" dummy, you seem to be arguing the point for nothing, I said people talk. Let's just say you're a diehard lefty, right? Just admit it already. Just cut the BS and be honest about what you believe. To the contrary, what you're saying makes me sick, it's people like you that would like to cut off all freedom of speech.

While I'm at it, I might as well add that false flags are all too real and too important to ignore so when someone offers up "their theory" I'd rather let it fly high loud and clear in the air rather than stifle them or attempt to shut them up. If they're wrong, at worse it only makes them wrong, but what they ARE NOT WRONG ABOUT is to be skeptical or critical of this--the United States of America government empire that only fucking stooges will defend--and a lot of them are party loyalists to the democrat and republican parties.

That said I'm fucking sick to death of all the "honor 9/11" BS that rolls around every September since that time. I don't know if 9/11 was done on purpose, but I'll tell you this, they've used it as a pretext to build a security state, moving many departments under the DHS. So when you go spewing your hate against those who would speak out and flinging your shit like an orangutan in crummy mood against those who speak out, I'm telling you right now: You can expect your own load of shit to be thrown back into your face forcefully.

bring it

[Tinfoil Hat]

<snip>
As for tea and whiskey. Combine the two into something like a hot toddy. The posters on this thread might appreciate a few drinks to release tensions. On second thought, maybe not.
<snip>

Sometimes in cold weather, I like hot tea with rum (an old W.W. I drink mentioned in All Quiet on the Western Front). However, Wells makes me want to do shots. Many, many shots, one right after the other in relentless repetition.