Wrestlemania 29 Plans & What I think Of Them, Kane After Team Hell No, Jack Swagger’s Gimmick & Trouble With The Law, Randy Orton No Longer A Top Star, Changeable Side Plates, WWE Owning Sting Footage

The 280th installment of the WNW Premium Mailbag is complete and is now online for your listening enjoyment! Today’s Premium Mailbag features questions that were sent from Sunday, February 10th to today. To submit your question for a future installment of the Premium Mailbag, click here.

To listen push the play button below:


Mobile and tablet users to listen please: CLICK HERE

To download this Mailbag to your computer: CLICK HERE

Send all Premium Mailbag questions to: Premium@wrestlingnewsworld.com

Connect With WNW

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!

  • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

    Richard, you said you have to question Swagger’s thinking. You also said Swagger might be liberal as he follows many liberals on twitter. This is an easy one to figure out. Liberals as of late have been a political movement in favor of unlawfulness. We are starting to become a nation of no laws. I do think Swagger is a liberal. So you shouldn’t really question why he did what he did. Some people like living a reckless, care free lifestyle.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

      Please, for the love of God, take a political sciences class.

      • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

        From a liberal professor? Already have.

      • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

        Swagger follows political figures that promote marijuana legalization. Why should we wonder why he made the decision he did? He obviously doesnt see anything wrong with it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

          Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, that Swagger “follows” promotes DUI. The possession and use of cannabis is a non-crime, plain and simple. That’s not the reason for the heat on Swagger. The reason is that he endangered peoples’ lives by driving under the influence of a reaction-time-lowering substance and speeding. Liberals tend to be pretty high up on protecting peoples’ lives as thoroughly as possible—i.e., NOT being lenient on DUI.

      • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

        I have. I’m trying to figure out why Swagger did such an unthinkable act while you are just ridiculing me without offering an opinion. Why don’t you take a class at the School of Adequate.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

          You have no concept of what modern liberals believe. Stating that they’re in favor of “unlawfulness”…WHAT? Are you and I talking about the same liberals? The same liberals that banned soft drinks over a certain size in New York? The same liberals who are attempting to ban assault weapons? No, if anything, liberals are wont to make MORE laws.

          I think what you’re trying to address is not even a liberal vs. conservative issue. It’s a libertarian one. Libertarians are the ones who believe people should be allowed to do what they want. Liberals are all about protecting the people as a whole.

          I said it in another comment here but it simply bears repeating: The possession and use of cannabis is a non-crime, plain and simple. It is a personal decision that does not in any way infringe on the rights of others. That’s not the reason for the heat on Swagger. The reason is that he endangered peoples’ lives by driving under the influence of a reaction-time-lowering substance and speeding. Liberals tend to be pretty high up on protecting peoples’ lives as thoroughly as possible—i.e., NOT being lenient on DUI.

          In summation, before you go insulting liberals by claiming they’re “unlawful,” do some research on what liberalism is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Liberals protecting lives? Really? Is that why they promote abortions? And dony act like they dont. Im not tslking about liberalism in my posts, you are. I wad talking about the political figures Swagger follows. As for one of them, Obama — a man unwilling to protect the border or the second amendment.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Sorry… Typing on my phone.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

            “Liberals as of late have been a political movement in favor of unlawfulness.” Sound familiar? It should; YOU SAID IT! I’d like to remind you which of us posted first…again, that was YOU. YOU brought up liberals. YOU. NOT ME. YOU. I’ll say this again, so you might understand it:

            YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT LIBERALS IN YOUR POST. You claim you weren’t. You were.

            As for liberals being PRO-CHOICE (not pro-abortion), yes. That’s true. Liberals believe a woman has the right to choose what happens in her uterus. Using abortion as an argument against protecting life really becomes bumpy because it depends on where you define “life” as beginning. Further, people who say abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest are just insane.

            Obama: a man unwilling to protect the border or the second amendment. First, the border issue… you realize AMERICA WAS FOUNDED by people who came here without permission, yes? That, literally, this is a country founded on the ideal that anyone can come here and try to make a life for themselves? “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of the teeming shore?” That’s not just pretty poetic language, it’s on the Statue of Liberty because it’s what our country stands for. As for the second amendment, there are a great many debates to be had on that argument, but in simple summation, the right to bear arms does not and should not apply to assault weapons that can be used to murder en masse.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Wow. I didn’t know you were to the left of being left. So people came here without permission? We are a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants because the USA had not been created and laws made against immigration.

            As for the assault weapon ban why don’t we all just admit that Obama wants to disarm citizens so people cannot fight back against an intrusive government.

            Listen to this on gun control and tell me what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztQNnC3oWMk

          • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

            You are a conspiracy theorist. This conversation is over.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Im not, but YOUR WELCOME for the interaction.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

            Which neatly brings us back to wrestling (Sandow “you’re welcome”), which is why we’re all here in the first place.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Yes we are here for wrestling and at times other aspects of life like politics will come in. And when it does we have to be willing to debate rationally with each other, not shoot people down because you don’t agree with them. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist is defined as a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. I’m not sure what I said that made you think I was.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

            You believe the government is CONSPIRING to take away all your guns to leave you defenseless against an invasive government. That’s your THEORY as to why they want to ban assault weapons (which, honestly, is really stupid because if people wanna kill you, they’ll find a way to do it). You believe there is a secret plot (to take away the guns to leave you defenseless) by powerful conspirators (the US Government). Conspiracy. Theory.


            Brief aside:
            I got news for you though, even if they DID let you keep your guns, the government still has nuclear weapons, drones, napalm, tanks, fighter jets, flame throwers, and highly trained assassins, all of which are not under the possession of the general public. Saying that the government is trying to take your guns to leave you defenseless against them is nonsense. You’re ALREADY defenseless against them by comparison. No amount of cute attachments to an AR15 is gonna stop a nuclear weapon.

            The problem with a conspiracy theory is that it is, by definition, what rational analysts would call “argument from ignorance.” It’s an artifact of just how lazy our brains are as humans. You see two dots, and your brain tries to connect those dots through the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, it’s very rare that any two things are directly connected like that. You’re wanting to fill in the blanks, where things have not yet actually happened, and you construct a theory that there’s a plot—in this case, to make you defenseless—that is unfounded in factual evidence.

            No, the theory that the government is trying to take your guns to leave you defenseless is not as ridiculous as the Alex Jones “Bloomberg Guys” stuff, or the “9/11 was an inside job” stuff, but it is, nonetheless, a conspiracy theory. You assert that the government is trying to leave you defenseless, and you do so without real, relevant evidence, and as the great rational thinker Christopher Hitchens once said, “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

          • shwo

            actually he’s right a out that, also not every conspiracy is a theory your a victim of indoctrination on that front

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            I pretty sure you have been indoctrinated enough.

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            It’s also important to point out Swagger’s lack of accountability. Once again, look at who he follows on Twitter. Obama is the King of not being accountable. He spends more time playing golf than with his jobs committee, and is constantly putting important fiscal issues off until the end like it’s a game of “who has the ball last.”

    • Kerri

      I haven’t even listen to this yet and what you said sounds like complete ignorance on your part and just taking the headlines of topics and putting them all together. I’m not a liberal or a conservative, but what you just rambled about makes my head hurt. I’m with Jon, please further your political knowledge.

      • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

        I don’t want to get in a heated discussion here. I’m just trying to make sense of this Swagger situation. We are all trying to figure out why Swagger would do something like this. You can tell a lot about a person based on their likes/interests from their social sites such as twitter or facebook. Look at the LA shooter, Chris Dorner; he had numerous people on his twitter likes that were anti-gun, race baiters, anti-police. Swagger has political figures he follows that aren’t the type to be advocates for holding up the law. So it would make sense that he wouldn’t have any regard for driving while stoned or going over the speed limit. Twitter/Facebook has become a powerful source for finding out how someone thinks or behaves.

        • Kerri

          If you don’t want to get into a heated discussion, then maybe you shouldn’t make comments like you did and seem to keep doing. You brought up politics, no me. By the way, you’re right- you can base all your beliefs, ideas and characterizations of someone from their FB and twitter and NOTHING else. Not a interview, or actual research or asking them yourselves- going off basically what’s a small spinet of the real person is the best way to assume how what they’re like. GENIUS!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/justinneerajlal Justin Lal

            Look, I’m just responding to what Richard was saying in his audio mailbag. Richard thinks Swagger may be a liberal so I’m responding to it. Of course we are going off a small “spinet” of the real person, but it’s something we can use to help figure out why Swagger did what he did. Everyone is giving a reaction to Swagger’s actions, but very few people are willing to examine why he did it. None of us knew a whole lot about Chris Dorner, yet his social media accounts were enough to figure out his intentions. Imagine that…

    • shwo

      “were becoming a nation of no laws” that is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen on the internet ever

  • Ryan

    Lol jk @henry

  • PainOfDemise

    Oh Swagger.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jonmgill2493 Jon Gill

      GENIUS!

  • shwo

    or maybe like Ive been saying taker is gonna face lesnar, why not a triple threat with rock, census and punk?

    • shwo

      cena*