Open Forum – Saturday

19 March 2016

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is to encourage you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Leave a comment

89 Comments

  1. kiwi guy

     /  19th March 2016

    Ben Rachginder or whatever his name is had a go at me on here a few days back about Breibart a conservative US news site, thought he had some dirt to discredit me about one of their female journalists nearly “thrown to the ground” by Trump’s campaign manager.

    Turns out Michelle Fields is a defamatory liar and got her spoiled Hollywood trust fund butt fired by Fox News yesterday:

    Nice try Ben.

    Reply
    • Fields’ story is backed up by witnesses and videos.

      As I’ve written, Breitbart reporter Fields was manhandled by someone identified as Lewandowski by Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, who was an eyewitness. It happened after she asked Trump a question on the campaign trail. Fields’ account is backed up by audio and video evidence. But instead of standing up for its employee, Breitbart News, nicknamed Trumpbart, seemed more interested in its coziness with Trump. Fields and several other Breitbart employees have since resigned.

      http://www.newshounds.us/fox_s_eric_bolling_throws_michelle_fields_under_the_bus_for_donald_trump_031716#XIP9LwSprpdmweDT.99

      Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  19th March 2016

        Sorry Pete, the video shows she is a tell tale.

        Where in the video do you see Miss Hairdo being nearly “pulled to the ground”?

        Miss Hairdo has a history of telling tales about harassment and assault.

        ” Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, who was an eyewitness.”

        Another hack from a propaganda outfit that has been gunning for Trump. No credibility whatsoever.

        Reply
        • Joe Bloggs

           /  19th March 2016

          @KG let me just correct that for you. A mouthpiece for Trump claims on video that Fields is a ‘tell tale’

          There that’s better…and more accurate

          Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  19th March 2016

        This is why Trump is winning.

        The media lies are so obvious

        Their attempt to make the American public vote the way the political establishment demands is obvious.

        Their hatred and contempt for the American public, who they believe to be their intellectual and cultural inferiors, is obvious.

        And you Pete are obviously all on board with that.

        Reply
        • Don’t make false accusations. You are obviously a smearer of anyone who you disagree with.

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  19th March 2016

            You only paste up anti Trump beat ups.

            I looked at the US Elections page in the Weekend Herald this morning, of the 6 or so articles most of them were anti Trump beat ups, nearly all the articles were from the same source; Washington Post – Bloomberg.

            No different to you.

            Or do you deny that all your posts about Trump are heavily prejudiced against him?

            What is your evidence that you provide balanced coverage of Trump?

            What positive coverage have you given of Trump?

            Reply
            • Joe Bloggs

               /  19th March 2016

              I’m more inclined to ask what positive coverage has Trump generated through his campaign.

              Even his own mouthpiece media hacks at Breitbart are bailing out rather than continue manufacturing a tissue of lies that he is presidential material

            • MaureenW

               /  19th March 2016

              The positive coverage isn’t reported in the media. Have you watched the debates through? He stands head and shoulders above the other puppet mouth-pieces. Presidential material? Who were you thinking of?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              The bits of the debates that I have seen show him shouting down or talking over everyone else in an unbelievably rude and overbearing way. Then he boasts about the size of his dangly bits-I don’t want to know that, thank you. If he bellowed over everyone else in an international meeting, it would not be well received, I think.

  2. From yesterday:

    Sandy Hook: Gezza refused to substantiate his assertion that police cruiser video exists which shows that the evacuation of the school was real and not staged as I claim.

    Boston Bombing: The debate continues. We have the FBI refusing to answer questions about the drill reported by witnesses (announcement captured on audio). The Boston Globe tweeted about a controlled explosion across from the library about two hours before the explosion which was widely reported occurred across from the library near the finish line. 9/11 NY and 7/7 London also had drills/exercises which run concurrently with the event.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  19th March 2016

      Hiya Uggers. Thanks for showing up.

      Boston Bombing:

      Boston Globe tweet. Click on the tweet. Read the other tweets. It rapidly becomes clear that timestamps on twitter are different in different timezones and are confusing. The police announced they were going to do a controlled explosion after more devices were found post bombings, but in the end they didn’t do this – see Wikipedia. Makes no sense for police and Boston Globe to announce on twitter they are going to do a controlled explosion in advance, and then to blow people up, and then leave the tweet around to be seen by conspiracy nutters. Conspiracy 101. Also, why only announce one forthcoming controlled explosion when there were two bombs exploding hundreds of yards, and several seconds, apart? Also, the timing doesn’t work, The tweet says the controlled explosion is going off in one minute, supposedly posted at 12:53pm. But the bombs went off at 2:49pm. That alone should tell you there’s something not quite making sense about twitter timestamps. Hmm? Here’s your tweet.

      Here’s the “drill” video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaWCumjviWg&feature=youtu.be

      First off, basically, nothing can be heard. Then after someone fiddles around and possibly even adds something, and says it is “enhanced”, you can vaguely hear someone saying something really muffled which the voiceover tells us is “this is a drill, this is a drill”. No jury in the world would accept this. And in fact no jury has. Also, it makes no sense for a bomb squad to be broadcasting a message “this is a drill” as runners are coming in to the finish line, from all over the world, in the famous Boston Marathon, to have the local authorities suddenly blow up the footpath on them. WTF are you thinking?

      It’s already known that the Boston police conducted two sweeps with bomb sniffer dogs. It’s an international event. It’s post 911. Normal security. The Tsarnaevs rocked up afterwards, the bastards. That’s why there’s no dogs in any of the photos or footage of the bombings (well, none that I’ve seen. Do you have some to show?)

      Reply
      • Hiya Uggers. Thanks for showing up.

        No problem. I’ve got things to do so I won’t be replying as often as I’d like.

        Makes no sense for police and Boston Globe to announce on twitter they are going to do a controlled explosion in advance, and then to blow people up, and then leave the tweet around to be seen by conspiracy nutters.

        Firstly, it’s reasonable to presume that the Boston Globe isn’t implicated in the conspiracy. There was a drill, and it’s reasonable to think that the Globe would publicise this. What probably happened is that the drill had a controlled explosion planned for the time in the tweet, but was postponed for a couple of hours by the conspirators.

        … you can vaguely hear someone saying something really muffled …

        You’re leaving out the part about how witnesses confirmed that there was in fact a drill.

        Also, it makes no sense…

        In the concurrent drill scenario many of those involved believe that it’s a legitimate exercise, so you’re going to get events coming from that perspective as well as from the party responsible for the political aspect (the terrorism/false flag/hoax).

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  19th March 2016

          You’re leaving out the part about how witnesses confirmed that there was in fact a drill.
          No, no. It’s in the video. Anybody listening here can hear that. The witnesses are talking about the security sweeps with the sniffer dogs. They were told not to worry it was just a drill. I don’t know whether that was what they were actually told or whether they were told it just a security sweep but it doesn’t really matter because it was clearly about the security sweep being done.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  19th March 2016

            What probably happened is that the drill had a controlled explosion planned for the time in the tweet, but was postponed for a couple of hours by the conspirators.

            Why is that what probably happened? Where is their tweet updating with the new situation? There isn’t one is there. That’s because what probably happened is that the tweet was posted after the bombs had gone off, and is about the police thinking they needed to blow up ONE suspicious device. Didn’t you click on the tweets inside the tweet?

            Reply
          • it was clearly about the security sweep being done.

            Nice non sequitur.

            If it was only a security sweep and not a drill like the witnesses said, then why were there Craft mercenaries with black backpacks with white tags, same as used in the explosions?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              The witnesses (the UM Cross Country Coach and some other man) in your video (copied from your post yesterday) talk about the sniffer dog security measures they saw being carried out. The coach said it appeared to him that there was some sort of threat, but they were telling people don’t worry this is just a training exercise. One of them even says he could see it was a drill being carried out. But these guys are talking about the two sweeps that were don before the race. They weren’t done during it. And this is only a short excerpt from what may be a longer interview.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Craft mercenaries? Ok, I’ll bite. What’s your link to this Uggers?
              I ask because I just googled and got the same pic for one item claiming they were at the San Bernadino shooting and another claiming they were at Boston.

        • Gezza

           /  19th March 2016

          In the concurrent drill scenario many of those involved believe that it’s a legitimate exercise, so you’re going to get events coming from that perspective as well as from the party responsible for the political aspect (the terrorism/false flag/hoax).

          I’ve read this several times now but it’s hurting my head because I’m not quite sure what it means. You still haven’t explained how deliberately setting off a large explosion at the end of the famous boston marathon, likely to make innocent runners from all over the world and the US poo their pants with shock – is remotely likely to be considered a winner of an idea by any competent local, police, or sports authority?

          Reply
          • You still haven’t explained…

            Your assumption is that a competent authority was involved. For argument’s sake lets say that incompetence led to the details of the drill getting into the hands of conspirators who have a Gladio-like agenda. The “authorities”, for lack of better word, run their drill and the conspirators pose as those legitimately involved in the drill and change the plan to suit their agenda.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              And the authorities who planned it to be done the right way and time somehow don’t go apeshit when it gets taken right off the plan by these interlopers and do nothing about it? Lol 😎

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              It’s a queer sort of drill that blows people up and kills them !

    • Gezza

       /  19th March 2016

      Sandy Hook. I’ll be posting that link to the cruiser video you’re wanting today, and some other stuff for you to comment on as well. Before I do, can I just ask what exactly is your position on Sandy Hook?

      Here’s the basic generally accepted narrative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

      What are you actually contending didn’t happen? The whole thing? Are you saying that nobody even turned up? From anywhere? Or are you saying there were no actual shooting victims? But people did turn up from the police dept and EMS. Or that they weren’t police or EMS. That there were no medical personnel? That there was no Chief Medical Examiner or his team? Or that Sandy Hook doesn’t exist? Or that the school didn’t exist, or wasn’t being used? What exactly are you saying was fake?

      Reply
      • Graham

         /  19th March 2016

        Hey Gezza. Your efforts to educate UglyTruth have been noticed on Kiwiblog. Keep up the good work!

        Reply
    • Gezza

       /  19th March 2016

      Sandy Hook: Gezza refused to substantiate his assertion that police cruiser video exists which shows that the evacuation of the school was real and not staged as I claim.

      Pics from linked article in Uggers’ first post today (above).

      Claim is that boy #1 and boy #2 are the same children in these pictures of two groups of children being evacuated. So therefore boys 1 and 2 are shown being evacuated twice. (Very bizarre claim: clearly 2 different groups of children to anybody but a conspiracist).

      Top Pic Boy#1 – Black top, no pic/pattern on front. Dark jeans, Dark Grey Sneakers. Tall compared to woman police officer he is in front of

      Bottom Pic Boy#1 – Black top with big (like, really big) grey picture on front. Maybe lighter jeans and shoes, though 2nd pic is lighter generally. Much shorter compared to woman police officer. Clearly different boy to Boy#1 at top.

      Top Pic Boy#2 – Short, slim, narrow shoulders, dark hair, apparently dark shoes.
      Bottom Pic Boy#2 – Light jeans, light colour shoes, light hair broad shoulders. Different boy from Boy#2 top image.

      Reply
      • Top Pic Boy#1 – Black top, no pic/pattern on front.

        Wrong, there’s clearly something on the front of his top.

        Dark jeans,

        No, the brightness is different for the two photos – you said so yourself.

        Tall compared to woman police officer he is in front of

        It’s a perspective effect. In the other photo he’s further back from the camera so he appears shorter.

        Top Pic Boy#2 – Short, slim

        Same as the other photo

        narrow shoulders,

        No, his arms are lower than in the other photo, there’s no comparison.

        dark hair, apparently dark shoes.

        No, the brightness is different in the two photos.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  19th March 2016

          Wrong, there’s clearly something on the front of his top.

          No, there’s not. Nothing like the image that should be there because Bottom Image boy#1’s shirt pic goes all the way round to near his right arm. Top image boy#1’s shirt is clearly seen from his right to his middle. No clear image there at all. I don’t mind you disputing that though. You’re seeing what you want to see. Others can draw their own conclusions.

          Here’s dashcam vid. It’s at the end of the pics:
          http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/sandy-hook-evacuation-photos-hundreds.html

          Reply
          • No, there’s not.

            There absolutely is. It’s hard to compare them because in the top picture the brightness is lower and the front his top is about 70 degrees away from the camera and in the shade, while in the bottom picture the brightness is higher, the boy is roughly facing the camera and his top is in sunlight.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Did you notice the same two pics in the dashcam page I just posted? Did you notice the colour in both is balanced?

              Zoom them both up to 150%. Do you notice boy#2 top image is wearing definitely black trackies with a blue side-stripe. And boy#2 bottom image is wearing definitely blue pants?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              One of them has shrunk quite a bit.

            • Yeah, if you look at the page you just posted boy#2 is wearing pants of a different colour, also the shoes are different. The blue side stripe is from one of the women behind him. Also the patterns on the top of boy#1 don’t match.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Yes, you’re right, thanks Uggers. Black pants only: the blue’s the jeans of the woman behind him.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              I’ve taken both those more colour balanced images up to 200% Uggers. Boy#2 top and bottom images are definitely different lads. Top image boy has black trackies blue stripe & white shores. Bottom boy has blue trousers and black shoes.

              I’m having another look at boy 1 though. You’re right, there’s a pic on his top, mostly hidden in shade.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              The boy in the black sweatshirt has also dyed his hair, acquired a tan, changed his shoes and somehow removed the picture from his sweatshirt. Possible-I don’t think.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  19th March 2016

              Yes, but the pic on boy 1’s top is a different shape. In one pic the greatest extension leftward is at the top and in the other it is at the bottom. Clearly different.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              He’s also had plastic surgery to change the shape of his face, the cunning little trickster.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Nah, can’t really tell if its the same pic. Bottom Lad’s pic looks like a big cartoon mouse-type character with a rounded tummy evident about 1/2 way down his top, Top boy’s pic’s just too indistinct to see, but doesn’t seem to feature that rounded tummy. I gonna call that one possible, but not actually proven.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Thanks KCK and Alan. There ya go Uggers. A couple more evaluations for ya. 😎

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  19th March 2016

              It’s two different groups of children-look at their clothes and sexes.

            • Oliver

               /  19th March 2016

              Did you know that Chris Kyle the American sniper worked for a private military company called Craft. And they were present at the Boston Marathon. They were wearing civilian undercover attire. Makes you wonder what they were doing there when they usually operate in places like Iraq.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Yeah that’s what Uggers is saying. They’re a private security company I understand. It’s not unknown for them to be hired to do security work at US National Events apparently. Do you have a link, Oliver, to the image(s) you think clearly establishes them being at Boston, any reason why they should be banned from there if so, and any evidence of any kind that suggests, if they are there, why they would be there to plant a bomb when they would seem to stand out with their recognised uniform and thus be highly visible?

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Sorry just noticed your last point about their being in civilian undercover garb. That’s a new one for me. Happy to check whatever evidence you’ve got of that.

            • Oliver

               /  19th March 2016

              http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2013/04/proof-that-craft-or-blackwater-agents-did-the-boston-marathon-bombing-2445882.html

              It’s true that they have security but that’s usually in the form of rent a cop security or actual law enforcement. Not guys trained for hostile environment.

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              They’re not plainclothes. They’re stickout-as in their uniforms. Only two of the group by the vehicle are wearing backpacks. The two guys running with the “remote” (post bomb going off I’d imagine) are still wearing their backpacks. Why would one have a “remote” on show anyway? If you were doing the deed via remote wouldn’t you put it in your pocket out of sight?

              Jahar’s black jacketed arm is at an angle – it’s not his backpack. Jahar has admitted at sentencing that he and his brother placed the bombs. All the best.8-)

            • Hey Oliver, seen this one? He’s not the Saudi National, he had different hair.

            • Gezza

               /  20th March 2016

              The voiceover says it looks like he has a protective vest on. “…and it looks like there’s been an explosion of a backpack right on this guy’s back. …All these wires in here they look like they could be communication wires still attached… This is only some of the crapola being spouted by this guy. The rest of what he says is stuff “I dunno what that is…dangly stuff…protective vest…” There’s more, but a lot of it’s “there’s something goin’ on there I’m not sure…” stuff.

              Uggers. Seriously? You are suggesting this guy actually wore the bomb? And he still has a head and arms n stuff? Why don’t you build a bomb to the specs suggested here, pop it in a backpack, put on a protective vest. Blow yourself up. Report back here with your findings and photos. 🙂

  3. Missy

     /  19th March 2016

    On the way home tonight I stopped at the supermarket for a bottle of wine (sauvignon blanc – from the chiller), all good, until I read the label which says “Security Protected. Chilled Foods. Please remove all packaging before microwaving” Ummmm…. what???? Hmmm… I am not sure microwaving my Sav is quite what I have in mind, could be interesting though.

    Reply
  4. jamie

     /  19th March 2016

    John Key this morning on why he has stopped wearing his Lockwood pin:

    “You know what? Everywhere I go people try to take it off me. I don’t know whether we’re winning or losing the debate but everywhere I go, I’ve got two left in my office in Wellington and that’s it, I would love to be wearing it but they’re just so popular I keep losing them.”

    I still find it strange that we have a PM who will look us in the eye and say such obviously untrue things.

    Lisa Owen probably finds it a bit strange that a question about the flag got him so rattled he called her “Susan” 😀

    Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  19th March 2016
    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  19th March 2016

    Back in October last year, this report on Trump’s campaign in the unlikely source of the Guardian predicted his staying power and impact:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/08/donald-trump-campaign-coalition

    For the same reasons it notes in the comprehensive planning and out of the box thinking that went into his campaign I would expect his administration should he become president would be far from the disaster his opponents and the media are predicting.

    It’s interesting to contrast his style with Key’s since they are both from business backgrounds but opposites in many ways. They do have in common the traits of extensive planning, studying, trading and innovating. But whereas Key takes a conciliatory angle Trump takes a confrontational one.

    Reply
    • Klik Bate

       /  19th March 2016

      Very true AW. No doubt Key came in with the best of intentions, it’s just a shame he showed such weakness of character by allowing himself to be captured by all the PC left-wing loonies. 😦

      Reply
  7. jamie

     /  19th March 2016

    “Godwins Law” states that the longer an internet comments thread goes on, the more likely someone will make a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis.

    Is there a similar law predicting the amount of time a daily forum is open before it gets overrun by inane conspiracy chatter?

    Reply
  8. Robby

     /  19th March 2016

    Time for something a little different, these conspiracy theories have been done to death over the past few days. Enjoy (unless you don’t like heights, that is 😉 )

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  19th March 2016

      ‘kin awesome 🙂

      Reply
    • Oliver

       /  19th March 2016

      You do know that this is fake…right?

      Reply
      • Robby

         /  19th March 2016

        If you say so Oliver. After all, you are right about everything else 😀

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  19th March 2016

        Fake? Really? Cool !! I’ve tried googling his name + “fake” but nothing’s coming up about it. How’s it being done?

        Reply
        • Dougal

           /  19th March 2016

          It would seem the accuser has his own issues with authenticity. Perhaps a poorly executed attempt at a joke or provoke another giant conspiracy about how the winged suit guy was in fact a CIA operative in a deliberate attempt to get nordic thrill seekers to believe they can fly and in the process they all end up killing themselves on video as a false flag distraction because NASA has discovered an asteroid that will wipe out humans within 20,000 years….

          Reply
          • Robby

             /  19th March 2016

            Yup, it’s all a big conspiracy. And this one must be fake, no way could this guy fly thru a hole in a rock as small as this, with balls like his….

            Reply
            • Dougal

               /  19th March 2016

              Yes indeed, GoPro are another one of the evil corporates creating “fake” characters and video just so they can sell more of the devils “magic”. 🙂

            • Gezza

               /  19th March 2016

              Whark!! What a trip 🙂

        • Gezza

           /  19th March 2016

          Oliver? How’s it being faked buddy? Where are the clues? 😎

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  19th March 2016

            I’ve got coffee but no wine biscuits 😦

            Reply
          • Dougal

             /  19th March 2016

            You really are a sucker for punishment Gezza but I am looking forward to the next couple of days where “Oliver” comes up with screeds of theoretical imbalances in the evidence, pictures of random witness accounts and last but not least constantly badgering you for responses to idiotic baseless lines of questioning…it’s been fun watching Uggers squirm so why not another..for a bit more entertainment. 🙂

            Reply
            • Please explain how I’ve been squirming, Dougal, or are you part of the Kiwiblog liars guild too?

            • Gezza

               /  20th March 2016

              Well, there’s your (to be fair, very gracious) admittance above that the images you claimed proved the same two boys were being evacuated twice was in fact incorrect, and that the claim was actually false, and quite quickly & easily demonstrated as wrong, and that your admitting this shows you had not even bothered to do the most cursory examination and analysis of this piece of “evidence” of fakery until briefly collapsing in ignominy above. There’s that.

            • Gezza

               /  20th March 2016

              Do you have any wine biscuits? 🙂

    • Pickled Possum

       /  19th March 2016

      @ Robby That was just Awesume! Far Out farrrrrk a chopter 300 with doors of is kinda scary with excitement to me but that’s just extreme?
      @ Geeza I can make some cookies with some wai-inging to go.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  19th March 2016

        Kia ora for that Possum. My Maori knowledge is pretty crap, sadly – what’s wai-inging?

        Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  20th March 2016

          @Geeza its my own smah-up meaning I’ll whinge the whole time making the cookies 🙂 just seemed to rythmn. Feeling smarty pants… not funni? 🙂

          Reply
      • Robby

         /  20th March 2016

        Good evening Possum, crazy stuff huh? This clip is what got me interested in the gopro channel, some mad bugger down my way jumping off a bridge. It’s ‘only’ 75 feet, but those rocks on either side look pretty unforgiving…..

        Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  20th March 2016

          Nah 🙂 not going there Robby it looks to extreme for me but my natural woman inquiry mind … watch later
          How do they do it gosh 1 wrong wind and it’s catcha lata. I used to follow a guy through the news … in a super suit and he got the distance wrong and he is no more now. The places he went Amazing!
          gopro stuff on a guy climbing a tall mast on a yatcht in the Attic with a gopro I couldn’t watch it to end I actually felt sick it was so high.
          Seether Fine again. and if you are asleep … oppps.

          Reply
          • Pickled Possum

             /  20th March 2016

            The best

            Rock on Joe!!

            Reply
          • Pickled Possum

             /  20th March 2016

            Warning to Kiwi Guy Don’t LOOK …. it has all your nightmares wrapped up in soulful music.

            Reply
          • Pickled Possum

             /  20th March 2016

            Chaka Khan sings the Best Love Story ever! with words for the woman to sing to their Bestist ? One. Beastie One 🙂

            Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  20th March 2016

          @Robby Jumping off the Bridge has now new meaning to me. Yeaaa but not me funni really I can hang out the no door chopper and have no fear just a little scared for a moment and exhilaration a plenty!!

          Reply
  9. Pickled Possum

     /  20th March 2016

    Journey with no Steve Perry .. Arnel singing now … Neil Schon awesome solo

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: