;

Daily Mail Online: Worse than Hitler?

0 views
0%

The daily mail sucks. The daily mail online is an atrocity.

The puddle story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2560118/Lauren-Goodger-jumps-round-puddle-outside-coffee-shop-friend.html

The baraco barner story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575436/Dumb-Britain-Beautician-laughs-Twitter-storm-mistakenly-spelling-Barack-Obama-Barraco-Barner-sparks-inevitable-parody-accounts.html

Disclaimer: I don’t actually think the daily mail online is worse than hitler, pol pot, stalin and mao zedong as the thumbnail might suggest. The things said in this video do not express the views of John McCain, Stephen Merchant, or any other completely unrelated person who wasn’t even mentioned in the video.

source

From:
Date: November 17, 2019

20 thoughts on “Daily Mail Online: Worse than Hitler?

  1. Yes mate, great video! Interesting to note that the owner of the Daily Mail The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Jonathan Harmsworth pays no UK tax on his 1 billion personal fortune that he shelters in offshore tax havens. Quite ironic since his newspaper so proudly presents itself as standing up for British interests.

  2. strange how the Daily Mail U.K.  mention Osama as the main feature of this story,……. ' Osama bin Laden's sister who 'died alongside his stepmother' when their £7million private jet exploded after overshooting runway and crashing into car auction in Hampshire;' …………………. why doesn't DM include Hitler every time they write about the Queen? they are cousins, Will and Kate are 8th cousins, you know that inbred thing dating back to the Rothschild family, well it's rife in the U.K. From the comments on DM there are more thumbs down for the Bin Laden's yet the brits continue to pay the Queen 37 million UK pounds per years, pay a license to own a television, pay poll tax and VAT at an extortionate rate yet keep voting in people that uphold this regime…one thinks you brits are stupid doesn't one!

  3. The saddest trick is that the  crappo newspaper invites readers to comment, but only allows the most saccharine  empathic pap to be published.  
    Anything that could be confused with objective criticism or 'fair comment' is uniformly CENSORED by the pro-homosexualist lefty onanistic cretins who "moderate" at that joke 'newspaper'.

  4. wow. asinine. but don't assume that it's simple supply and demand. the powers that be (the corporate giants who now own most media in addition to everything else) aim to fill the population's mind with drivel to distract them from the syphoning of resources from the general reach of the masses into the hands of the the elite few (who are now obscenely wealthy as a larger and larger proportion of the masses live in poverty), as well as from their general destruction of life on earth – taking place right now (climate change). you always see tabloid media in corrupted, hierarchical societies. in the u.s. that's barely all that's left…

  5. ill never understand the whole celebrity fixation. honestly SOMEONE is on their computer, and they see a link like "(insert celebrity)  NO MAKEUP, and they are fucking interested in seeing that shit, and they ACTUALLY fucking read the article!! it's like anything someone with fame or money does is automatically highly interesting for these people! soon enough we are gonna see links like "JUSTIN BIEBER CONFIRMS, HE DOES IN FACT, TAKE SHITS. click link to see the full story!"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *