Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Alex Jones
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Alex Jones www.infowars.com

Bag of hot air.

37%

[ 14 ]

9-11 wasn't an inside job?

13%

[ 5 ]

There has to be some truth in there.

48%

[ 18 ]

Total Votes : 37

Author

Message

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:19 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

Really this is small money though. He can hardly be said to be "raking it in"...

That's your opinion and nothing better.

Yeah, kind of like every thing you've written so far, albeit with a lot less arrogance.

Quote:

As for his operating costs, I remember specifically hearing him (on his show, when he was addressing someone attacking him for making money) say that his costs were close to a million $ per year.

Ok, then he must be more than a millionaire...based on your hearsay.

Stupid.

Quote:

I don't have an official source (if you wanna call him a liar, go ahead, but you don't have any proof either).

Yup. You have no source, yet you demand sources from me. That's weak, but very very typical.

The onus is on YOU. You claimed he was a millionaire! You're the one who's talking out of his ass.

Quote:

He has many staff and researchers working for him,

Finding your "eugenics" crap? Then he's an idiot.

I think you're the idiot. All you can do is call things beyond your understanding "crap". Yet you offer zero insight on anything. Typical of someone who only knows how to talk out of his ass.

Quote:

and just operating his radio show isn't cheap.

You mean his syndicated radio show?
You're trying to say that, on the net, he's losing money from his radio show?

Yes.

Quote:

I honestly doubt he's making much at all. Obviously he does ok, but he's not rich.

Yes, you CTers are generally quite earnest in your convictions, but you have a mistakenly elevated perception of your opinions absent of anything but crap to back them up.

You haven't backed anything up. Ad hominem attack is literally the only thing you have.

Quote:

Quote:

That's $828,520 net value.
$1134 a day in ad revenue.
How many years has he been in the fear-profiteering business?

That doesn't cover his actual pay for his radio job, nor does it cover the $25.95 stupid people pay to own his free videos, nor does it cover the money he makes off his books.

He has to spend money to make all that stuff. It's not free, or even cheap.

Yup, that's a bunch of vague platitudes. I could have said the opposite instead of providing you with evidence. How is it that I'm now expected to entertain your non-starters?

You made the claim in the first place. You can't turn it back on me. You can't prove your original claim, that's all there is to it. So just admit you're talking out of your ass.

Quote:

Have you ever run a business? If you have, you'd know that just quoting some random revenue figures doesn't mean anything. You usually end up making a mere fraction of that amount.

And I specifically told you not to do that. I suppose you have already started a business, eh? And you know all about it like the book you haven't read. It's a confidence game and a non-starter because I could say I invented Post-It notes.

Actually I do run my own business (I'm not an English teacher, used to be though). Anyway, the point is that you seem pretty clueless about the basics of running a business. You claimed he was making $800+ k per year, without factoring in operating costs. In other words, you were dead wrong.

Quote:

Again, you demanded evidence of me. I gave it to you even after you accused me of pulling it out of my ass. Please stop pulling arguments out of your ass in return.

No, you did not. Admit you have no clue how much money he makes. It's beyond obvious - watching you try to squirm your way out of it is just embarrasing.

Quote:

Quote:

Now, you can quibble about his operational costs and baselessly assert that he's not in it for the money, but it's safe to say that Alex Jones has made himself a millionaire off his conspiracy empire.

No, it's not safe to say at all. You have zero proof. I'd bet you money he's not a millionaire, but there's no way to prove it either way (unless you can find a clip of him admitting it). I'd say he's making decent money (maybe six figures), but no way he's a millionaire.

Oh, you bet me money? Hello!? This is the internet. You can't bet me money, and after several pages of swinging your yarbles around about how people haven't read history or didn't read the book you never read, you're backpeddling to kindergarten "I betcha" nonsense?

More useless and hollow commentary coming from you. I'm not interesting in you trying to be clever and show off your flaming skillz. It's not very amusing. Just admit you were wrong already.

Quote:

And again, even if he were, so what? It doesn't affect his credibility in any way.

Good, remember that the next time you start bleating about Wall Street jackals or whoever else you say is "in on it".

Meaningless.

Quote:

You're not contributing anything to debate. I don't care about your nit-picking about words, when you know perfectly well the point I'm making. It's like people getting on a high horse about the strict, historical use of the word 'fascist'.

The etymology is not the issue. The issue is what eugenics as a movement actually was and is. If all you have anything to offer about Holdren's views (you've offered nothing so far) then go ahead.

Nope. Being accurate is for people other than the conspiracy crowd. I know what you mean. You appear to really think that something's going to be put in the water that isn't already there. I believe that, as a Libertarian, you should recognize that water control is largely municipal. So, do you have anything beyond a Dead Milkmen
http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/deadmilkmen/stuart.html
point about what the "eugenicist science czar" is going to do to our soil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=_c6HsiixFS8
That is right, isn't it? Your primary concern is that yokels dumb-up to the point that the federal government, under Barack Obama, is going to sterilize us through our water supply?

The point is that the Federal government is full of people with such ideas as the ones I quoted for you. Obviously.

Quote:

No, no, no. I'm not making fun of you. I'm just doing a kind of reality check. You are legitimately concerned that, as per Alex Jones and his million-dollar research team, the federal government is going to surreptitiously slip sterilizing agents into the nation's municipally-controlled (not to mention often private; my house has its own well--2 in fact) water supply and this, coming on an Alex Jones thread to defend him, is your example of a case where Alex has his head on forewards?

I'll take people who write these things at their word. Your "witty" mockery of it takes second fiddle, sorry.

Quote:

Is that, in any way, distorting the point you're trying to make?

I'm not really interested in getting into a flame war with you - I just wish you'd state some actual facts. Then we can actually debate them. Otherwise, this is getting old fast.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:38 am Post subject: ...

Oooh. OK, let me repeat myself.

The passage you're quoting is coming out of a chapter in a book where serious academics discussed a full range of possibilities and how they would (unreal conditional, maybe you don't teach English) be implemented.

Their conclusion was that these measures "would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent".

Quote:

So you're still wrong.

Really? Which part of your cut-and-paste indicates that?

Most have "never been tried".
Some are "technically impossible".
They will probably "remain socially unacceptable".
Their effectiveness "may be great"?

Is that what you're on about? Is that your back peddling excuse to suggest that Holdren UNEQUIVOCALLY ADVOCATES these measures?

Rubbish.

Quote:

You admit you haven't even read the book, and yet you feel qualified to call Alex Jones "rubbish"?

You're the genious who was pretending to have read the book. You think Alex Jones has read that book? Ya gonna do another kindergarten "I betcha"?

Is there a certificate course I can do to call Alex Jones rubbish? Please post the info.

Quote:

You're not qualified in the least,

LOL, what qualification do you have to certify Alex Jones's rubbish?

Quote:

and you've been proven wrong,

LOL. No, you're just making a very clumsy attempt to save face.

Quote:

despite your arrogance on here Are you going to retract your statements about him? Highly doubtful.

Nope.

Whatever your non-point is above, I'll ask you the question again:

I'm not making fun of you. I'm just doing a kind of reality check. You are legitimately concerned that, as per Alex Jones and his million-dollar research team, the federal government is going to surreptitiously slip sterilizing agents into the nation's municipally-controlled (not to mention often private; my house has its own well--2 in fact) water supply and this, coming on an Alex Jones thread to defend him, is your example of a case where Alex has his head on forewards?

Is that, in any way, distorting the point you're trying to make?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:03 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Now, in whole paragraphs (woohoo!), some crotchety conservatives (be they libertarian or republican) seized upon these bits when their mission from God to declare Obama a Kenyan were shown to be just that: a whole load of manure not unlike Bacasper's Nazi idiocy.

I have no idea to what is being referred to here, but I just wanted a snapshot of that.

I used to like NWM. He has great argumentative skills; a shame he'd have to resort to this.

As any high school debater knows, if you can get your opponent to attack you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate.

The bright side is that my time is limited, and now I'll have fewer posters I'll need to respond to or take seriously here.

Thank you.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

I'm not really interested in getting into a flame war with you - I just wish you'd state some actual facts. Then we can actually debate them. Otherwise, this is getting old fast.

Yup. So let's review:

Evidence about A. Jones money

Mine= He makes 1000 a day off his websites in addition to their value at $800,000

He also makes money off a syndicated radio show and book sales.

Your evidence to the contrary= a story and posturing

Done.

And who needs a flame war? Just answer this simple question:

You are legitimately concerned that, as per Alex Jones and his million-dollar research team, the federal government is going to surreptitiously slip sterilizing agents into the nation's municipally-controlled (not to mention often private; my house has its own well--2 in fact) water supply and this, coming on an Alex Jones thread to defend him, is your example of a case where Alex has his head on forewards?

Is that, in any way, distorting the point you're trying to make?

Is this a mockery of what you're trying to say?

If it is, just correct it.

Quote:

The point is that the Federal government is full of people with such ideas as the ones I quoted for you. Obviously.

You've fall-on-your-face failed to show that even one person in the federal government intends to do anything of the nature you insinuate.

Facts? I provided you with info about Jones's income you said I invented. I showed how you pretended to have read a book you haven't and how the spin you copied from another website isn't accurate.

What facts are you bandying about?

You willfully ignore evidence and view it as other people's problems and not your own.

This typifies the Alex Jones crowd.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:47 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

So you're still wrong.

Yes, he most certainly advocates it. What he should have done is unequivocally advocate against it, but he does the opposite. Rather, he clearly states that he sees it as a viable option in the future (which is outrageous to me). His feeling about it is quite clear. Rather than quibbling about such trivialities, I'm surprised you're not outraged to know that Obama's science czar has publicly stated the fact that he even entertains such possibilities. The ideas he espouses are insanely immoral, that is the real issue (and you know it).

Quote:

You admit you haven't even read the book, and yet you feel qualified to call Alex Jones "rubbish"?

You're the genious who was pretending to have read the book. You think Alex Jones has read that book? Ya gonna do another kindergarten "I betcha"?

I quoted the text for you. It has nothing really to do with AJ, the text speaks for itself. Holdren believes putting sterilants in the water supply can be a viable way to control the population in the future. This is a fact, as written, in the full and unabridged section in his own text. You can spin and resort to mockery all you want, but you simply can't deny it for him; therefore your point is moot. Period.

Quote:

Is there a certificate course I can do to call Alex Jones rubbish? Please post the info.

Just read the Holdren text (unabridged or otherwise). It is quite clear.

Quote:

You're not qualified in the least,

LOL, what qualification do you have to certify Alex Jones's rubbish?

I'm not the one trying to act smart. That would be you.

Quote:

I'm not making fun of you. I'm just doing a kind of reality check. You are legitimately concerned that, as per Alex Jones and his million-dollar research team, the federal government is going to surreptitiously slip sterilizing agents into the nation's municipally-controlled (not to mention often private; my house has its own well--2 in fact) water supply and this, coming on an Alex Jones thread to defend him, is your example of a case where Alex has his head on forewards?

Um, are you asking me if I trust the government? Hell no. Not in the least. This has a lot less to do with me defending Alex Jones than you think (I've only watched his show sometimes on youtube, I would hardly call myself one of his "followers")...
I just happen to agree with the material he and his guests present. Most of it is factual, and I don't just take his word for it (I make my own mind up after checking the facts). But that Holdren text is beyond obvious. I seriously wonder how you can ignore it and pretend like it's all just innocuous. I think you are more interested in having a pissing contest that with having an actual debate. Again, I'm not really interested in doing that...

Last edited by visitorq on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

I'm not really interested in getting into a flame war with you - I just wish you'd state some actual facts. Then we can actually debate them. Otherwise, this is getting old fast.

Wrong. Your claim was that he was raking in tons of money, and that he is a millionaire. You failed utterly to prove your claim.

Done.

Quote:

And who needs a flame war? Just answer this simple question:

You are legitimately concerned that, as per Alex Jones and his million-dollar research team, the federal government is going to surreptitiously slip sterilizing agents into the nation's municipally-controlled (not to mention often private; my house has its own well--2 in fact) water supply and this, coming on an Alex Jones thread to defend him, is your example of a case where Alex has his head on forewards?

Is that, in any way, distorting the point you're trying to make?

Your tap water has fluoride in it, right?

Quote:

Is this a mockery of what you're trying to say?

If it is, just correct it.

It's somewhat of a mockery, in the sense that you won't even entertain the possibility that the government would do such a thing. Despite evidence (such as the Holdren text in question), you refuse to entertain the possibility, and call others who do 'idiots'.

Quote:

Facts? I provided you with info about Jones's income you said I invented. I showed how you pretended to have read a book you haven't and how the spin you copied from another website isn't accurate.

No you didn't.

Quote:

What facts are you bandying about?

That Holdren advocates forceful sterilization to control the population. Fact.

Quote:

You willfully ignore evidence and view it as other people's problems and not your own.

Right back at you.

Quote:

This typifies the Alex Jones crowd.

No it doesn't.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:26 am Post subject:

Quote:

I have no idea to what is being referred to here, but I just wanted a snapshot of that.

Yeah, death camps, Barolph Obitler or whatever slur you used. That would be that.

Quote:

Wrong. Your claim was that he was raking in tons of money, and that he is a millionaire. You failed utterly to prove your claim.

He has websites valued at $800,000 in addition to income from radio syndication. He's copied Ron Paul in holding "money bomb" events that have earned him an additional $500,000 so that he, not unlike the 700 Club, can broadcast via his own network.

Money sunk into a broadcasting station constitute assets. Alex Jones is a millionaire.

You have offered nothing but stories to indicate otherwise.

Quote:

Your tap water has fluoride in it, right?

Let me borrow a line from when you were pretending to have read a book: go back and read.

Quote:

If you're Glen Beck, ypu can try to still spin it that way, but it's over and simply not true. He wasn't advocating. He and his co-authors, in fact, advocated against such measures.

Quote:

No it doesn't.

You're not the first poster who thinks he has a magic wand to wave away arguments supported by evidence.

Latest news: infowars posts Charlie Sheen's imaginary interview with Obama.

Fear.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:41 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

I have no idea to what is being referred to here, but I just wanted a snapshot of that.

Yeah, death camps, Barolph Obitler or whatever slur you used. That would be that.

Quote:

Wrong. Your claim was that he was raking in tons of money, and that he is a millionaire. You failed utterly to prove your claim.

Even if he is a millionaire (which you haven't proven with documentation), it is irrelevant.

Quote:

Let me borrow a line from when you were pretending to have read a book: go back and read.

Quote:

If you're Glen Beck, ypu can try to still spin it that way, but it's over and simply not true. He wasn't advocating. He and his co-authors, in fact, advocated against such measures.

You're the one pretending to have read the book. You haven't.

You only addressed that one point (and failed miserably in the debate, as I showed that he does indeed advocate it). All the other points I listed that Holdren advocates in his book stand as well. But then you're way too lazy and disingenuous to even bother trying to tackle them.

As for Glen Beck, I've got nothing to say about him, except that he seems like controlled opposition put on Fox to lead people astray. I haven't watched his show much, but he seems like a total sham to me.

Quote:

No it doesn't.

You're not the first poster who thinks he has a magic wand to wave away arguments supported by evidence.

Pot kettle black. You've got no evidence.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:14 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

I have no idea to what is being referred to here, but I just wanted a snapshot of that.

Yeah, death camps, Barolph Obitler or whatever slur you used. That would be that.

I am sorry if you lack the capacity for abstract thinking and are unable to comprehend the transition from deliberately and actively killing people to causing their deaths via one's inaction, either directly or by proxy.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Yup, that's quite abstract, alright. Impenetratively so, but I get the sense you're playing me and not the ball.

Quote:

Even if he is a millionaire (which you haven't proven with documentation), it is irrelevant.

You're right. He's made a lot of money selling fear.

Quote:

You're the one pretending to have read the book. You haven't.

I've stated quite the opposite.

Quote:

You only addressed that one point (and failed miserably in the debate, as I showed that he does indeed advocate it). All the other points I listed that Holdren advocates in his book stand as well. But then you're way too lazy and disingenuous to even bother trying to tackle them.

I've explained the purpose of the chapter and specifically cited the part in the conclusion where he and his co-authors do not advocate what they've discussed. Their conclusion applies to all aspects of your insinuation.

Quote:

Pot kettle black. You've got no evidence.

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.infowars.com
http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.com/moneybomb/
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1247.html

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&source=hp&q=holdren+militate&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=69ff31901b811ad

Now, moving on.

Let's do Bohemian Grove.

I'll admit, when I first heard about this Burning Man for the elite, I found it quite odd.

What I didn't find was that it is, per Alex Jones, evidence of child sacrifice.

Visitorq!

What say you?

Do you think kids are being sacrificed at Bohemian Grove, or is that just Alex's trumped up charge?

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

Even if he is a millionaire (which you haven't proven with documentation), it is irrelevant.

You're right. He's made a lot of money selling fear.

So far all you've claimed (without proving) is that he's worth around a million $ in assets (not even liquid money). This amount is peanuts and really backfires on you as a point (it's laughable that you even consider that amount to be "rich"). People like Glen Beck get paid $50 million+ to sell out their country. Alex Jones, whatever else you may say, most certainly is not in it for the money. He probably has a middle class income after paying all his costs.

Quote:

You're the one pretending to have read the book. You haven't.

I've stated quite the opposite.

Ok, so I need not take your opinion on the matter seriously then (since you now admit you've never even read the book). I on the other have read much of it (not cover to cover yet).

Quote:

No, you hypocritically left out the remainder of the paragraph yourself, where he does leave it on the table as an option.

As for the other chapters - they all stand, you've debunked nothing. He advocates a global police force with powers to supercede national sovereignty, for example. He also advocates forced sterilization. He is quite clear about this.

Quote:

Pot kettle black. You've got no evidence.

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.infowars.com
http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.com/moneybomb/
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1247.html

He's raising money to expand his operations. There is nothing wrong with this. It's not that much money either....

You've still not given a single shred of evidence as to what he makes AFTER his operating costs. That's because you have no clue whatsoever. This is the bottom line.

Quote:

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&source=hp&q=holdren+militate&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=69ff31901b811ad

Yeah, he still thinks it's a viable option to use in the future. We've been over this.

Quote:

Now, moving on.

Let's do Bohemian Grove.

I'll admit, when I first heard about this Burning Man for the elite, I found it quite odd.

What I didn't find was that it is, per Alex Jones, evidence of child sacrifice.

Visitorq!

What say you?

Do you think kids are being sacrificed at Bohemian Grove, or is that just Alex's trumped up charge?

I don't know that much about it - as far as I do know, AJ himself isn't claiming to be sure about it being a child or not either.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&source=hp&q=holdren+militate&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=69ff31901b811ad

Here's the full text (again):

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries. "

Read between the lines: he is saying if the milder measures don't work, we can always try out the more "extreme involuntary or repressive" ones.

This is our science czar! If anything he should be unequivocally REJECTING these horrible notions; instead he entertains them quite seriously. This is an unbelievable document.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:05 am Post subject:

Yet more of Holdren's Malthusian madness: "Involuntary fertility control The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested. ... A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization). The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility. " Seriously crazy.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

So far all you've claimed (without proving) is that he's worth around a million $ in assets (not even liquid money).

I've provided evidence that he is worth $1 million.

You, who've falsely claimed that I haven't provided evidence, have offered this evidence in turn:

Quote:

__________________________________________________________

Quote:

This amount is peanuts and really backfires on you as a point (it's laughable that you even consider that amount to be "rich").

My argument is that he's making a substantial amount of money selling fear. Your opinion, that the money I've provided evidence for, is peanuts is really just an opinion. You seem to be missing this, but I've supported my opinions with evidence. Now, I'll remind you that the evidence you've provided is:

Quote:

________________________________________________

Quote:

People like Glen Beck get paid $50 million+ to sell out their country.

Good, you've apparently established how much Beck gets paid. Now, find us info about Alex Jones.

Quote:

Alex Jones, whatever else you may say, most certainly is not in it for the money. He probably has a middle class income after paying all his costs.

Whatever else I will say is that you've provided:

Quote:

____________________________________________________

to support your opinions.

At this point, I have grown to understand the tactic. You, in a wave of the magic wand, are going to again claim that my position is unsupported while you yourself, provide nothing to support your own position other than your opinion.

I believe I'm done with this topic until you move on from offering opinions. I'll let others read the exchange and inform themselves accordingly.

Now for Holdren:

Quote:

No, you hypocritically left out the remainder of the paragraph yourself, where he does leave it on the table as an option.

The difficulty we seem to be having is that you conflate "leav[ing] it on the table as an option" with advocacy.

Leaving nuclear options on the Bush administration table (vis a vis Iraq, or even Iran, for that matter) did not constitute advocacy.

Quote:

He advocates a global police force with powers to supercede national sovereignty, for example. He also advocates forced sterilization. He is quite clear about this.

No, he and his co-authors are addressing hypothetical scenarios. You again appear not to comprehend the hypothetical nature of the discussion.

Quote:

Read between the lines:

Yes, let's read the part that you didn't highlight:

Quote:

As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.

What's quite clearly being stated here is that abortion and vasectomy (considering this is from the 70s) should be readily available. In the 70s, we know abortion wasn't "readily available" because there are still places where it isn't.

Quote:

he is saying if the milder measures don't work, we can always try out the more "extreme involuntary or repressive" ones.

Yes, he is. Again, he is discussing this in hypothetical crisis terms, not advocating them. This is a very important difference that you appear to ignore.

Quote:

Yet more of Holdren's Malthusian madness:

You're back to eugenics arguments...

Quote:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means.

Yes. China and India. China did act, but Holdren here is describing, not advocating.

Quote:

This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries

So, again, he is describing, not advocating and speaking hypothetically. To try to connect the statements above with the absurd insinuation that he is advocating putting sterilants in US, municipally controlled drinking water goes beyond being disingenuous to the realm of fear-mongering.

Your own quote:

Quote:

The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

This is, again, hypothetical and speaking in terms of crisis. It is not advocacy.

Now, point by point, I've showed that what you think is advocacy has no suggestion of such. I reliably expect you to come back through and fall back on your oft-repeated fallacy that, because Holdren does not rule these measures out, he advocates them.

Unless you have something new to add, I'll leave my arguments as they are. Holdren's 1970s book is a non-issue that Alex Jones uses to sell drinking water on his highly profitable websites.

Speaking of bad things in the water, Alex Jones also wants you to beware the chemtrails polluting your soil with barium.

Visitorq!

What say you? You reserved comment on whether the New World Order has at its heart occult sacrificial rites involving children (as Alex and his crack team of researchers insinuate). How 'bout chemtrails as evidence of biological tests covertly taking place on unsuspecting Americans? Is Alex onto something big? Or, is he ignoring evidence to spin this issue in a way to sell his indefensible fighting technique (note: his movies are free, but you have to pay for the martial arts)?

Enquiring minds want to know.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

So far all you've claimed (without proving) is that he's worth around a million $ in assets (not even liquid money).

I've provided evidence that he is worth $1 million.

No, because you haven't cited any liabilites/debts he might have. Also, when you call someone a "millionaire" it usually means they've got at least a million in ready cash. Otherwise millionaires a dime a dozen (if both my parents died and I received their property, I would be worth around a million $ - and I'm not rich)...

Quote:

You, who've falsely claimed that I haven't provided evidence, have offered this evidence in turn:

Quote:

__________________________________________________________

See above. Your "evidence" is totally lacking.

Moreover, I've already pointed out that it is irrelevant how much money he has. More important would be where his money comes from. I see no problem whatsoever with any of Alex Jones' sponsors or sources of revenue.

Quote:

This amount is peanuts and really backfires on you as a point (it's laughable that you even consider that amount to be "rich").

As mentioned, your evidence is totally lacking, and basically amounts to nothing.

As for your "opinion" that AJ is selling fear - this is simply untrue. He is merely reporting the truth as he sees it.

Quote:

People like Glen Beck get paid $50 million+ to sell out their country.

Good, you've apparently established how much Beck gets paid. Now, find us info about Alex Jones.

This info is unavailable. You've already helped establish this by your failure to find out AJ's net income.

Quote:

At this point, I have grown to understand the tactic. You, in a wave of the magic wand, are going to again claim that my position is unsupported while you yourself, provide nothing to support your own position other than your opinion.

Yeah, the onus is on you. Deal with it. If you don't like it, you're free in the future not to make bogus claims that you can't substantiate. You can save yourself future embarrassment.

Quote:

I believe I'm done with this topic until you move on from offering opinions. I'll let others read the exchange and inform themselves accordingly.

Pointing out that you haven't substantiated Alex Jones' net income or worth is not an opinion. It is an undeniable fact. But feel free to quit trying (I already know you won't be able to find this info, so you may as well).

Quote:

Now for Holdren:

Quote:

No, you hypocritically left out the remainder of the paragraph yourself, where he does leave it on the table as an option.

Yes, it absolutely does constitute advocacy, under the conditions that Holdren believes are already upon us (he actually leaves the door wide open in this regard). In Holdren's case it constitutes advocacy if the other measures don't work first. This is completely unacceptable.

Quote:

He advocates a global police force with powers to supercede national sovereignty, for example. He also advocates forced sterilization. He is quite clear about this.

No, he and his co-authors are addressing hypothetical scenarios. You again appear not to comprehend the hypothetical nature of the discussion.

Nonsense. He is suggesting it as a viable solution. This is completely clear.

Quote:

Read between the lines:

Yes, let's read the part that you didn't highlight:

Quote:

This is irrelevant. He then goes on to suggest more extreme measures if the above prove insufficient for reducing population growth. He explicitly mentions the use of forced sterilization.

Quote:

he is saying if the milder measures don't work, we can always try out the more "extreme involuntary or repressive" ones.

Yes, he is. Again, he is discussing this in hypothetical crisis terms, not advocating them. This is a very important difference that you appear to ignore.

Ok, good - so you now admit that he is advocating it. Duly noted.

The measures he is suggesting are NEVER acceptable. Never, ever. Do you want to be the first to volunteer for sterilization? If not, would you feel okay about it being forced on you?

Quote:

Yet more of Holdren's Malthusian madness:

You're back to eugenics arguments...

That's what we're dealing with. Holdren is a full-on Malthusian. He even uses the 1 billion mark as the amount of people we should have (it's in the book, which I'm still currently reading).

Quote:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means.

Yes. China and India. China did act, but Holdren here is describing, not advocating.

He is not limiting his discussion to China and India.

Quote:

This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries

He absolutely does advocate it as next resort (should milder measures prove insufficient in his view).

You also failed to admit that municipally controlled water is a moot point, since the federal government has higher authority. We already have fluoride added around most of the nation.

Quote:

Your own quote:

Quote:

The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

This is, again, hypothetical and speaking in terms of crisis. It is not advocacy.

There is no crisis and there never was one. However, HOLDREN CLEARLY STATES that we are in crisis already (and this was back then). Therefore, he absolutely is advocating all these measures (less extreme first, but still all) in response to what he consider to be the global population crisis.

You are just p_ssy-footing around it now with semantics (pretending it's all merely "hypothetical" and innocuous, when it's so obviously not).

Quote:

Now, point by point, I've showed that what you think is advocacy has no suggestion of such. I reliably expect you to come back through and fall back on your oft-repeated fallacy that, because Holdren does not rule these measures out, he advocates them.

See above.

Quote:

Unless you have something new to add, I'll leave my arguments as they are. Holdren's 1970s book is a non-issue that Alex Jones uses to sell drinking water on his highly profitable websites.

Complete non sequitur. You're not even close.

Quote:

Speaking of bad things in the water, Alex Jones also wants you to beware the chemtrails polluting your soil with barium.

That's nice.

Quote:

Visitorq!

What say you? You reserved comment on whether the New World Order has at its heart occult sacrificial rites involving children (as Alex and his crack team of researchers insinuate). How 'bout chemtrails as evidence of biological tests covertly taking place on unsuspecting Americans? Is Alex onto something big? Or, is he ignoring evidence to spin this issue in a way to sell his indefensible fighting technique (note: his movies are free, but you have to pay for the martial arts)?

Alex Jones doesn't take credit for chemtrails.

Quote:

Enquiring minds want to know.

Mock on.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe