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

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: ...

As already stated, I'm fine with your insubstantive posturings.

Quote:

Alex Jones doesn't take credit for chemtrails.

Like this. Alex Jones "doesn't take credit for chemtrails"?

Umm....what?

"doesn't take credit for chemtrails"?

What exactly does that mean?

What does he "take credit for"?

Could you give me an example?

I think we both teach English, so let's simplify things:

Alex Jones takes credit for _____________.

Please complete the statement.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

As already stated, I'm fine with your insubstantive posturings.

And as stated, I'm fine with you calling the kettle black. You still haven't substantiated any of your claims.

Quote:

Alex Jones doesn't take credit for chemtrails.

First I'll just say that I'm not the expert on Alex Jones here (in case you were mistakenly under that impression). However, to my knowledge, the idea of chemtrails was not 'discovered' by him. I don't think he takes credit for uncovering it as a conspiracy.

He does take credit for being one of the original people involved in the 9-11 truth movement, however.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

And as stated, I'm fine with you calling the kettle black. You still haven't substantiated any of your claims.

I've provided evidence. You've provided none.

Quote:

This is all meaningless considering the British abdication and Holdren's "eugenics" did not originate with him.

9/11 has its own thread.

This is an Alex Jones thread.

Now, visitorq!

I'd like you to weigh in on this:

Are internment camps (for those who don't take the flu shot) and mass graves (for the dead) being prepared?

Better yet, are the flu jabs a "eugenics" experiment?

Shocked

thoreau

Joined: 21 Jun 2009

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Alex Jones takes credit for _____________.

Please complete the statement.

Alex Jones takes credit for predicting 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18aMCs9Pxw (00:50)

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:30 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Alex Jones takes credit for predicting 9/11.

Alex Jones takes credit for predicting 9/11 as an inside job.

He's still a million miles away from substantiating this claim. Either way, that belongs on the 9/11 thread.

What we've covered here so far:

-there is a video that might indicate that Edward abdicated because of his Nazi support

Does Alex Jones take credit for that? No, I don't think so. It wasn't his idea, but he promotes it.

-John Holdren was not espousing eugenics or advocating forced sterilization.

Does Alex Jones take credit for that? No, I don't think so. It wasn't his idea, but he promotes it.

-Alex Jones is making significant profits off of his conspiracy theories.

The combined assets of his two websites plus his "money bomb" endeavors (assuming he's actually buying a tv studio) indicate that his conspiracy mill has made him a millionaire.

Does Alex take credit for this? No. He does his best to hide how much he makes. Either way, the $1 million mark is supported by evidence.

Now, Alex snuck into Bohemian Grove and described what he saw as simulated "child sacrifices" and the highest echelons of our society involved in "occult worship".

On his website, he allows selective guests to prattle on about how chemtrails are chemical tests conducted by the US government.

Our featured speaker here, after asserting that WWII history was being rewritten to hide "the real reason" for abdication and happily reasserting numerous times that we should be shocked at Holdren's government position...suddenly does a 180 on Bohemian Grove and the chemtrails.

Why? Supposedly because:

Quote:

Alex Jones doesn't take credit for chemtrails

Alex Jones openly perpetuates chemtrail conspiracy theories on his websites, just as he does his abdication insinuation and his "eugenics" accusations against Holdren.

Accordingly,

Quote:

Alex Jones doesn't take credit for chemtrails

is a dodge. It's an attempt to pretend he endorses abdication insinuations and Holdren accusations but not chemtrails as insidious government experiments.

Not to mention internment camps for flu-jab dodgers and mass graves.

kotakji

Joined: 23 Oct 2006

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: ...

visitorq wrote:

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

This is where I believe the conspiracy theorists tend to take a nugget of truth and inflate it into an imminent danger. The solution mentioned is viable, just not moral depending on your particular ethical framework. Honestly, I believe our senior policy makers would be negligent to categorically reject any potential solutions to problems being investigated. I don't see their theorizing to be any different than the Pentagon having targeting coordinates and contingency plans to nuke the UK into the sea. That doesn't mean advocating the genocide of the British, but, rather keeping the option available in the extremely unlikely situation that it could become necessary.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: ...

kotakji wrote:

visitorq wrote:

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

No, this is just wishful thinking on your part. Writing it off as a conspiracy, when he is overwhelmingly clear in his assertions that the world is greatly overpopulated, and that overpopulation is already a major crisis (and he wrote it in the 70's).

Anyway, I'm not going to bother arguing. I've read the whole book, and his agenda is quite clear. But I'm sure you and others will just continue to believe your government gives a sh_t about you, and rationalize your way all the way to the FEMA camps (if it were ever to come to that)... I'm not saying they will get away with it, but I have no doubt that some of you will actually go along with anything the government plans for you.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:39 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Exactly. This is not advocacy. It's a lie to say it is.

And as long as I'm here:

Does Alex "take credit for" Holdren?

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:15 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

Exactly. This is not advocacy. It's a lie to say it is.

And as long as I'm here:

Does Alex "take credit for" Holdren?

You (admittedly) haven't even read the book. Therefore your "opinion" is worthless. Period.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:41 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

You (admittedly) haven't even read the book. Therefore your "opinion" is worthless. Period.

You already knew what was in the book when you had only pretended to read it. Your pretending to have read the book is well-documented now.

Give us the bit that we're missing if you've read the book.

Quote:

Nowhere Man wrote:
Quote:
This is where I believe the conspiracy theorists tend to take a nugget of truth and inflate it into an imminent danger. The solution mentioned is viable, just not moral depending on your particular ethical framework. Honestly, I believe our senior policy makers would be negligent to categorically reject any potential solutions to problems being investigated. I don't see their theorizing to be any different than the Pentagon having targeting coordinates and contingency plans to nuke the UK into the sea. That doesn't mean advocating the genocide of the British, but, rather keeping the option available in the extremely unlikely situation that it could become necessary.

Exactly. This is not advocacy. It's a lie to say it is.

You have nothing new or you'd have already provided it.

Does Alex take credit for Holdren's "eugenics", or was that "take credit for" business just you looking for a way out of the corner you've painted yourself into?

-Bohemian Grove-occult child sacrifice
-Chemtrails-chemical warfare testing
-The US is giving land to the UN-New World Order!!!
-Internment camps are being prepared for those who don't take the swine flu jab
-Mass graves are being prepared

This is the chaff that infowars (oh my god, everyone but Alex is battling for my head!) and prisonplanet (holy sheepshanks; Alex, I'm a prisoner! Can I buy some of your water and your indefensible fighting technique?) are peddling to the people.

Best not muddy yourself with this claptrap. The hand-waving might seem less sincere.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:16 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

You (admittedly) haven't even read the book. Therefore your "opinion" is worthless. Period.

Enough of your lies already. I quoted the entire section (it's still there for all to go and read) which shows Holdren advocates putting sterilants in the water supply (not as a first resort, but certainly if necessary).

You can keep waving your own hands in the air, pretending the meaning isn't totally clear (which it is), you're not fooling anyone.

Plus it shows how desperate you are, clinging to semantics and focusing only on that one section - when the numerous other sections I've quoted (such as putting a global police force to enforce laws above the sovereignty of nations) are all just as telling.

But of course you ignore these other sections, because you're all bluster and no substance. This is obvious.

You also lied about Alex Jones being a millionaire, when you provided NO proof that he's actually worth that amount after expenses and liabilities are accounted for. Sheer disingenuity on your part.

Plus you admit you've never read the Holdren book. Therefore debating with you is a waste of time.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

So, no, claiming to have read the book yields no new support. Your claim is based on back when you hadn't read the book but suggested you did.

The hoopla in the media is over. Holdren's explanation and his 20-year tenure at Harvard are now up against some random internet dude who lied about reading his book.

The global police argument is the same as the rest of his argument. It was there back when you lied about reading his book.

You have no evidence he advocates any of this, neither before you lied or after you lied.

You have no evidence other than the evidence I've shown you that Alex Jones' million-dollar operation isn't a million-dollar operation. While you were busy lying about reading the Holdren book, you called me a liar because I just invented the value of his websites. I didn't. I provided you, the guy who lied, with proof that I didn't lie.

You, the one who lied, have responded by calling me a liar.

If you wanna lie, then don't lie to me and then call me a liar. Cuz, when you lie like you did (and you shouldn't have lied; you just hoped that, in your lie, no one would notice that you were lying), people come to see you as a liar.

I am not a liar. Having been here 5 years, there have been times when I was wrong and had to admit being wrong, BUT I've NEVER lied and then had the gall to try and defend a lie by lying about another poster being a liar. This lie goes above and beyond your first lie.

So, whatcha gonna do? Lie further? Couldn't you, back at square one, just have admitted to lying? Nope. Based on other threads, going back on yourself isn't an option. You appear to prefer to lie about what you've already said than try to fix it. So, you've lied here about having read a book. Now, you say you've read it, but that could be a lie. You've already lied, so who knows. More importantly, after you lied and then may have lied about reading the book, you have nothing more to offer.

In terms of advocacy, "viable" does not constitute advocacy.

Lie about it if you want.

But a liar doesn't have any business calling someone a liar.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:43 am Post subject:

^ to think you actually have the time on your hands to write all that drivel... maybe you should spend your time doing something productive - like actually reading the book in question; so that you can have a legitimate opinion on topics such as these. But since you haven't read it, everything you've written throughout the past several pages amounts to nothing. I, on the other hand, quoted Holdren's text verbatim, where he advocates these things. Therefore, I'm right. Anyway, I await your next vacuous response. We both know you're more interested in trying to come off as "witty" here, than in discerning the truth. I'd call you a troll, but I don't actually mind what you're doing. Have at it.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

^ to think you actually have the time on your hands to write all that drivel... maybe you should spend your time doing something productive - like actually reading the book in question; so that you can have a legitimate opinion on topics such as these.

Well, I promise that, the next time I lie about having read a book, I will go out and actually read it.

Quote:

But since you haven't read it, everything you've written throughout the past several pages amounts to nothing. I, on the other hand, quoted Holdren's text verbatim, where he advocates these things. Therefore, I'm right.

OK. Verbatim. You did that back before you read the book, no?
The problem is that your verbatim quotes don't show he is advocating these things you say he is. According to you, you have verbatim read the book. My explanations have addressed all passages that you've verbatim Glenn Becked into advocacy

Quote:

Anyway, I await your next vacuous response.

Oh, you mean like this? ____________________________________
That's the evidence you've provided that Alex Jones hasn't made himself a millionaire by shoveling fear into his listeners' mouths.

It conveniently coincides with the big _____________________________ you have showing Holdren "advocating" positions he specifically advocates against in his book.

Now, the 1940s weren't so long ago. You use ___________________ to suggest that history is being manipulated and that Wallis Simpson wasn't the primary reason for Edward VIII's abdication.

Quote:

We both know you're more interested in trying to come off as "witty" here, than in discerning the truth.

It's not the first time someone had to fall back to this line of ad hominem, but it may be the first time someone has pretended to have read a book and then done so. Seriously? Witty? Do you see the big _________________________________ above? That's where you've, "man the torpedoes, full speed ahead" tried to "prove" your point via some hardcore insinuation. There's really nothing witty in pointing that out, nor is it witty watching you hop thread to thread, visit your insinuation, and then leave accusing people of doing the same as you.

You, the guy who lied about reading a book, ought not be wagging fingers at others for your so often claim of "pot calling the kettle black".

It's a very simplistic defense system that, and I don't think this is witty at all, you seem to think is impermeable.

No it isn't.=hand-waving

Hypocrisy=everyone does it

It's poor. It's weak. If "so are you" is the best defense for your position, then you don't really have one at all.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

Well, I promise that, the next time I lie about having read a book, I will go out and actually read it.

Quote:

Anyway, I await your next vacuous response.

Quote:

We both know you're more interested in trying to come off as "witty" here, than in discerning the truth.

It's as if you stood in front of a mirror rehearsing all that to yourself before you typed it down Laughing

Whatever. I'll admit I've had less amusing exchanges than this on here, but if you think I'm going to keep going back and forth with someone who won't even read the damn book... well I just don't see the point ("witticisms" aside).

At the end of the day, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it. I quoted very large bodies of text where he clearly spells it out for you, but you still claim it's not enough (what do you want me to quote whole chapters? Or the entire book?).

You're not a bad sophist - but that's all you've got. There's only so much spin you could put on the word "advocacy". In the end, Holdren's overall agenda is quite clear - and he wrote an entire book on it, which is brimming with clear examples. But then you'll never know, unless you read it (you can start with the paragraphs I posted earlier - it seems you didn't even bother reading them). So go on, read it! And get back to me. You'll see that I (and Alex Jones for that matter) are correct... or at least we'll be able to have a meaningful debate.

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 7 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