|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| 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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| It's as if you stood in front of a mirror rehearsing all that to yourself before you typed it down Laughing |
The liar calling the kettle a liar? Is that what you mean?
| Quote: |
| 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). |
The "damn book" is now on torrent. Shall I get a copy? Is there a point in doing so when your whole argument, back when you lied about reading the book, isn't different?
| Quote: |
| At the end of the day, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it. |
Even after reading the book you pretended to read, you have yet to establish this.
| Quote: |
| 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?). |
No, I'd like to see the part where he advocates "eugenics", as you've described the sterilants-in-water measures he advocates against.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Well, big boy, after lying about reading it, you now clearly have the evidence, right? There's nothing in the book that supports your insinuation further. I'm downloading the book. Please direct me to the missing information that, after you lied about reading the book, you now have. You're lying again. You found nothing in the book. Kind thanks to pm friends for their help with this.
Bring it. What's in the book that you haven't already copy/pasted that supports your non-argument?
Nothing?
Give me page numbers.
Or, are you lying?
Again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
^You're so full of crap it's coming out your ears...
As you say: bring it. I've already posted several other paragraphs, which you've consistently ignored. Here's one (already posted):
| Quote: |
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. " |
Go and ahead and spin it some more  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As you say: bring it. I've already posted several other paragraphs, which you've consistently ignored. |
Lie. I said this at the very start, and it applies to all of your non-evidence:
| Quote: |
To contextualize: In the 70s, overpopulation was regarded as being in a crisis stage (Now, the concern has shifted in the other direction; people not making enough babies means that Muslims will soon be swimming over Europe in their burkinis and never shifting down their baby production so that they totally pwn those unsuspecting free-ride socialists Razz)
Holdren and Ehrlich wrote about the population crisis. In one section of a far longer piece, they covered all of the bases (as a good academic should) by providing an exhaustive inventory of practices either theorized or being practiced in places further afield like India and delineating what would be involved if such practices were (note unreal conditional; I think you teach English) implemented in the US.
|
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=163325&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Not to mention his conclusion where he
But if you need me to walk you through it, that's ok, too.
| Quote: |
| Yet more of Holdren's Malthusian madness: |
You're clinging to terms that don't make sense, even in the context you're trying to insinuate.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Saying we need to discuss these because they may be put into use by other countries is not advocacy.
| Quote: |
| Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested. |
This is a comparison, not advocacy. For example, I could say that Hinduism may be less repressive than Islam. That is not advocacy.
...
| Quote: |
| 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. |
It might be easier to hang out at home than go away for the weekend.
This is another comparison, not advocacy.
| 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 (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization). |
You can fly to Japan, or you can take a boat. Unfortunately, taking a boat isn't even possible unless you're in Pusan.
This is not advocacy.
| Quote: |
| 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. " |
And, finally, modality. "Could" here refers to possibility, not advocacy. Saying there are "additional options for coercive fertility control" is not advocacy.
Visitorq! Perhaps contrasting your non-evidence of advocacy with actual examples of advocacy from the text would help illustrate the difference.
p. 553, last sentence of the last paragraph.
p. 565, last sentence of the first paragraph.
p. 905, paragraph 5, sentence 3
I'll be happy to provide the quotes, but perhaps you could demonstrate that you do, in fact, have the book by providing them yourself.
On page 898, he refers negatively to Malthus. Odd for a Malthusian, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:45 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As you say: bring it. I've already posted several other paragraphs, which you've consistently ignored. |
Lie. I said this at the very start, and it applies to all of your non-evidence:
| Quote: |
To contextualize: In the 70s, overpopulation was regarded as being in a crisis stage (Now, the concern has shifted in the other direction; people not making enough babies means that Muslims will soon be swimming over Europe in their burkinis and never shifting down their baby production so that they totally pwn those unsuspecting free-ride socialists Razz)
Holdren and Ehrlich wrote about the population crisis. In one section of a far longer piece, they covered all of the bases (as a good academic should) by providing an exhaustive inventory of practices either theorized or being practiced in places further afield like India and delineating what would be involved if such practices were (note unreal conditional; I think you teach English) implemented in the US.
|
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=163325&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Not to mention his conclusion where he
But if you need me to walk you through it, that's ok, too.
| Quote: |
| Yet more of Holdren's Malthusian madness: |
You're clinging to terms that don't make sense, even in the context you're trying to insinuate.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Saying we need to discuss these because they may be put into use by other countries is not advocacy.
| Quote: |
| Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested. |
This is a comparison, not advocacy. For example, I could say that Hinduism may be less repressive than Islam. That is not advocacy.
...
| Quote: |
| 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. |
It might be easier to hang out at home than go away for the weekend.
This is another comparison, not advocacy.
| 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 (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization). |
You can fly to Japan, or you can take a boat. Unfortunately, taking a boat isn't even possible unless you're in Pusan.
This is not advocacy.
| Quote: |
| 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. " |
And, finally, modality. "Could" here refers to possibility, not advocacy. Saying there are "additional options for coercive fertility control" is not advocacy. |
None of what you've written above is even worth a proper response. It's all meaningless drivel, focusing the semantics of "advocacy". His agenda is clear, whether he unambiguously, literally "advocates" it or not.
| Quote: |
Visitorq! Perhaps contrasting your non-evidence of advocacy with actual examples of advocacy from the text would help illustrate the difference.
p. 553, last sentence of the last paragraph.
p. 565, last sentence of the first paragraph.
p. 905, paragraph 5, sentence 3
I'll be happy to provide the quotes, but perhaps you could demonstrate that you do, in fact, have the book by providing them yourself. |
1) Holdren advocates government control over smoking laws. This is always the goal of the state - to control the economy. What's the upshoot? The taxation of cigarettes perhaps? The prices have since doubled. It's basically a tax on the poor "for their own good". Because the government always knows best .
2 He says is against the use of pesticides. Not surprising since he's a Malthusian. In his twisted (and historically incorrect view) humanity can never produce enough food - and if technology actually enables this, then it must be bad. Better for people to just starve.
Of course as a tool of eugenics (killing off the population) he probably lauds the use of pesticides. But it would be difficult for him to say it, as he would be advocating mass murder. He and his ilk almost always advocate "preventative" Malthusian checks on population over "positive" ones (makes them come off as more humanitarian). But they actually favor both.
3)Of course Holdren doesn't care if the regimes are military dictatorships or communist. As long as state control over the masses is sustained, both work just as well.
| Quote: |
| On page 898, he refers negatively to Malthus. Odd for a Malthusian, eh? |
No, he doesn't refer to Malthus "negatively". Allow me to set the record straight for you - by once again quoting the book verbatim:
"According to this position, it is likely that human demands and impact at some point in the future will exceed a (possibly dynamic) limit as it stands at that time, leading to a large increase in the human death rate or in the incidence of poverty. The neo-Malthusian view proposes conscious accommodation to the perceived limits to material growth via population limitation and redistribution of wealth, in order to prevent the "overshoot" phenomenon. On these points we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp." (bold and italics are mine)
Try and spin your way out of that!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
None of what you've written above is even worth a proper response. It's all meaningless drivel, focusing the semantics of "advocacy". His agenda is clear, whether he unambiguously, literally "advocates" it or not.
|
So, you mean that insinuation about his "agenda" is all you have.
Pages 553, 563, and 905 weren't chosen for you to comment on policy. They're offered as examples of advocacy you insinuate is in other parts where it isn't.
| Quote: |
There is no doubt, of course, that voluntary smoking provides a great many people with a great deal of pleasure. But it seems to us that this activity should be legally confined, as certain other pleasurable (and considerably less dangerous) activities are, to consenting adults in private. |
The above is an example of advocacy.
| Quote: |
But, overall it seems clear that human contact with the pesticides should be minimized. |
The above is an example of advocacy.
| Quote: |
| The United States must stop supporting assorted dictators around the world merely because they claim to be anticommunist. |
The above is an example of advocacy.
Moving on,
| Quote: |
| No, he doesn't refer to Malthus "negatively". Allow me to set the record straight for you - by once again quoting the book verbatim: |
On 898, he indicates that the 3rd world shouldn't be expected to follow the development of the West by "applying the ideas of Marx, Malthus, or perhaps Henry Ford". Odd for a "Malthusian".
Now for your verbatim:
| Quote: |
"According to this position, it is likely that human demands and impact at some point in the future will exceed a (possibly dynamic) limit as it stands at that time, leading to a large increase in the human death rate or in the incidence of poverty. The neo-Malthusian view proposes conscious accommodation to the perceived limits to material growth via population limitation and redistribution of wealth, in order to prevent the "overshoot" phenomenon. On these points we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp." |
Right, so Neo-Malthusians support "population limitation by birth control and/or abortion"
Note: sterilants in the drinking water and forced abortions aren't mentioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-malthusianism
whereas
Malthusians are more about not feeding the poor so that whatever happens happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
So again, making abortion and vasectomies available to whoever wants them is a good idea. The rest is being discussed hypothetically in an exhaustive, academic examination of a wide-ranging issue.
The spin remains yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ I wasn't referring to wikipedia I was referring to Holdren (who is an admitted Malthusian). He describes the notion of putting sterilants in the water supply in detail, saying that it is an acceptable way to control population if "necessary". Anyone with any morals at all would say that the circumstances never permit forced sterilization. Nobody has the moral right to decide that another human must be sterilized. But Holdren has no such moral qualms. He would do it, if he felt it was necessary to achieve his goals. This is what he has written.
He essentially states that it would not be the most pleasant way to go (personally I doubt he cares one bit, but it's only natural for him to at least pretend to lament it), but that it is an option nevertheless. It is an acceptable option for him. He also considers forced sterilization to be acceptable, period.
Anyway, your using semantics to defend his obviously horrible ideas is getting old. Holdren's overall agenda is out in the open, he barely even tries to hide it. It wouldn't matter all that much, except that he is now Obama's science czar (meaning he has actual power to influence policy). He clearly states his belief that the world is dangerously overpopulated, and would be willing to go as far as to put sterilants in the water supply to forcefully lower the population level (which has already risen a great deal since he wrote that book). None of this is debatable - it is what he himself has written. Holdren is therefore a dangerous man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ^ I wasn't referring to wikipedia Laughing I was referring to Holdren (who is an admitted Malthusian). He describes the notion of putting sterilants in the water supply in detail, saying that it is an acceptable way to control population if "necessary". Anyone with any morals at all would say that the circumstances never permit forced sterilization. Nobody has the moral right to decide that another human must be sterilized. But Holdren has no such moral qualms. He would do it, if he felt it was necessary to achieve his goals. This is what he has written. |
As stated previously, nuclear options are an option. Academic discussion is thorough in the sense that there isn't self-censorship in exhausting options. Forced sterilization already exists. Holdren hasn't endorsed it, but it does.
| Quote: |
| He would do it, if he felt it was necessary to achieve his goals. This is what he has written. |
This much is true, if you include the caveat that "his goal" is based on a hypothetical situation.
You are falsely portraying his goal as off-hand contemporary sterilization of anyone anywhere. He doesn't contemporarily advocate this, and he recommends measures to avoid his hypothetical situation.
| Quote: |
He essentially states that it would not be the most pleasant way to go (personally I doubt he cares one bit, but it's only natural for him to at least pretend to lament it), but that it is an option nevertheless. It is an acceptable option for him. He also considers forced sterilization to be acceptable, period. |
He's saying it is an option, period. This is very different than your pages of attempts to portray this as advocacy. Again, a nuclear option is always an option. Your spin about how he feels about the options is just spin.
| Quote: |
Anyway, your using semantics to defend his obviously horrible ideas is getting old. |
Oh, is it?
-your lie about reading the book when you hadn't was quite old when you introduced it
-your misunderstanding of "eugenics" was quite old when you started lobbing this label at Holdren
-your claims that Holdren "advocates" forced sterilization, forced abortions, and a new world regime were all semantic argument to begin with. If you don't like being called out on your semantics, then you have no business employing them for your own ends.
| Quote: |
| Holdren's overall agenda is out in the open, he barely even tries to hide it. It wouldn't matter all that much, except that he is now Obama's science czar (meaning he has actual power to influence policy). |
Oh good. In his current job as cabinet post, do you have even a minor inkling of evidence to indicate he plans to sterilize water users, force abortions upon people, or encourage Obama to sacrifice US sovereignty?
Do you have even a wrinkle on a scrotum's worth of evidence of absolutely anything that suggests your Alex Jones nightmare of injustice is happening or on its way to being so?
| Quote: |
| He clearly states his belief that the world is dangerously overpopulated, and would be willing to go as far as to put sterilants in the water supply to forcefully lower the population level (which has already risen a great deal since he wrote that book). None of this is debatable - it is what he himself has written. Holdren is therefore a dangerous man. |
He was speaking hypothetically. You, at this time, clearly chose to ignore that to begin with.
Now, just like when you lied about me not providing evidence of Alex's money, just like you lied about me not addressing your cut-and-paste arguments, just like you lied about Holdren's " UNEQUIVOCAL advocacy" that now, per your own posts, amounts to him not ruling out measures, AND, just as you lied about having read the book when you hadn't, I think we're done with Holdren.
Now, what was it you were saying about WWII?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
1) I didn't lie about reading the book. Your saying that I lied is slanderous. That makes you the liar.
2) It goes without saying that Holdren doesn't view the possible "necessity" of forced sterilization in the future as merely "hypothetical". That is just your asinine interpretation of things. Holdren states clearly that he considers overpopulation to already be a global "crisis". Of course he is totally wrong, but he that's what he thinks.
Your portrayal of his book as an innocuous sort of "catalogue" of value-neutral hypothetical options is laughable, as is your entire style of debate. You've got nothing, and you never had anything. All you can do is spin, and spin some more.
Anyone with a brain who reads the book as I have will see the obvious: that Holdren is a typical Malthusian who believes the world is severely overpopulated and that the population needs to be reduced at any cost. He is prepared to go as far as adding sterilants to the water supply to make it happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:40 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
[quote="visitorq"]^
| Quote: |
1) I didn't lie about reading the book. Your saying that I lied is slanderous. That makes you the liar.
|
Yeah, now that you have the book, your pretense about having read the book seems a little less relevant. Nonetheless, back when you were pretending to have read the book, as you did for a very long time, you're going to have to go back and clean up the mess you made when pretending for this thread to actually read like that's what you did. All the edits will show. Be my guest.
| Quote: |
2) It goes without saying that Holdren doesn't view the possible "necessity" of forced sterilization in the future as merely "hypothetical". That is just your asinine interpretation of things. Holdren states clearly that he considers overpopulation to already be a global "crisis". Of course he is totally wrong, but he that's what he thinks.
|
His possible necessity in the future?
Don't call me asinine.
| Quote: |
Your portrayal of his book as an innocuous sort of "catalogue" of value-neutral hypothetical options is laughable, as is your entire style of debate. You've got nothing, and you never had anything. All you can do is spin, and spin some more.
|
Your position, despite repeated false claims that I haven't supported my position when I have while you have provided a whole load of _________________ to support your own is a curious one.
| Quote: |
| Anyone with a brain who reads the book as I have will see the obvious: that Holdren is a typical Malthusian who believes the world is severely overpopulated and that the population needs to be reduced at any cost. |
No, that's not what he says.
| Quote: |
| He is prepared to go as far as adding sterilants to the water supply to make it happen. |
And you're selling the same fear as Alex Jones.
Chemtrails?
Occult child sacrifice?
Mass graves and internment camps?
Visitorq!
You don't seem to be party to all of what Alex endorses.
Do you buy only part of the above?
Or all of it?
Why?
Your answer is important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Your position, despite repeated false claims that I haven't supported my position when I have while you have provided a whole load of _________________ to support your own is a curious one. |
Look up the word onus in the dictionary. This whole thing started with you claiming Alex Jones was a millionaire. You have failed miserably and finally to prove this statement. For all you know running his business costs him as much or more than he earns.
| Quote: |
| Your answer is important. |
Not really. I'm not Alex Jones. I never claimed to agree with everything he says. The onus is not on me unless I make claims (as I did regarding Holdren).
One thing for sure though, is that you have done a pretty piss poor job of debunking the things he says. All you've done is mock the idea that the things he says are to be taken seriously. Pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Look up the word onus in the dictionary. This whole thing started with you claiming Alex Jones was a millionaire. You have failed miserably and finally to prove this statement. For all you know running his business costs him as much or more than he earns. |
I've shown that he is a millionaire.
What have you shown?
____________________________________________________
Nothing.
Quote:
Your answer is important.
| Quote: |
| Not really. I'm not Alex Jones. I never claimed to agree with everything he says. The onus is not on me unless I make claims (as I did regarding Holdren). |
Yeah, and you made claims regarding WWII. You're really kind of full of claims, no?
| Quote: |
One thing for sure though, is that you have done a pretty piss poor job of debunking the things he says. All you've done is mock the idea that the things he says are to be taken seriously. Pointless. |
Well, you buy his drinking water, don't you?
No, there is no onus upon you to answer further about anything.
Nevertheless, I think the guy who started the thread is interested.
You pretended to have read a book to defend Alex Jones.
You're now a bit iffy about defending his other points.
Would you say you "just got swept in" by the Alex Jones mania? Or, do you think his chemtrails=government testing, bohemian grove=occult sacrifice, flu jab internment camp theories are not as strong as your damning example of "eugenics" in the Obama administration?
I mean. Yeah. It paints a very different picture of Alex depending upon your answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Look up the word onus in the dictionary. This whole thing started with you claiming Alex Jones was a millionaire. You have failed miserably and finally to prove this statement. For all you know running his business costs him as much or more than he earns. |
I've shown that he is a millionaire. |
No you haven't.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, and you made claims regarding WWII. You're really kind of full of claims, no? |
Refresh my memory - which claims were those?
| Quote: |
| Well, you buy his drinking water, don't you? |
No. Nor is it "his" drinking water. I see no problem with him advertising products. Unless there's any problem with the products. But you're too lazy to even go there. Mockery is so much easier when you've got nothing else.
| Quote: |
| Would you say you "just got swept in" by the Alex Jones mania? Or, do you think his chemtrails=government testing, bohemian grove=occult sacrifice, flu jab internment camp theories are not as strong as your damning example of "eugenics" in the Obama administration? |
Case by case. I'm not a "Alex Jonesian" or whatever you're trying to get at here. I happen to think many of the things he's reported on are true (like 9-11 being an inside job, and about bankers running our country etc); but I don't really spend much time listening to his show (only the odd youtube clip). Most of the things he says happen to be supported by other experts, and even by some mainstream media sources (which whitewash it).
The point is that you just engaging in an ad hominem attack. You mock him without taking the time to actually address the claims in detail. Then you expect me to respond seriously to you. Why should I waste my time? You seem interested only in baiting me and others so that you can mock us in turn (fine by me, but don't expect to be taken seriously).
| Quote: |
| I mean. Yeah. It paints a very different picture of Alex depending upon your answers. |
It's not about Alex Jones. It's about the ideas (whether right of wrong). Focus on the latter and you might learn something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:52 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's not about Alex Jones. It's about the ideas (whether right of wrong). Focus on the latter and you might learn something. |
Yup, it's about the ideas. Right of wrong? Focus on the latter? Brilliant.
A good case of Alex Jones being right is __________? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Drudge (drudgereport.com) linked to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B_xBWsDpz0
I don't think I've ever seen Drudge link to AJ before. He speaks the truth in the above video, though with hyperbole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
