Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Alex Jones & Infowars Becoming a Bigger Force

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:22:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alex Jones forced CNN founder globalist eugenecist, Ted Turner, to apologize for saying that "it's good that U.S. troops are killing themselves."

Infowars is being cited and posted as a source on Drudge Report and The Daily Mail, two highly respected and credible news sources.

Fox News even took a news story from Infowars about Ted Turners comments on Piers Morgan CNN and claimed they broke the story even though Alex broke the story 4 days prior. So even if Fox won't give credit, Infowars is controlling the mainstream discussion.

Alex Jones over the years has had so many top officials, celebrities, political scientists, economists, Congressman and Senators, UFC's Joe Rogan, world renowned rappers like KRS-One, Immortal Technique, scientists, former CNN journalists, etc. (majority of whom either agree with, endorse, or are friends with him) that he is no longer fringe and weak. He is massive and widely respected.

He used an analogy of his operation that he's like a starfish that grows 2 new tentacles if the NWO tries to shut him down. It's like theyre playing wack-a-mole, after hitting one head, 3 more pop up. Alex Jones has almost reached unstoppable status, truth and a revolution of ideas can't be stopped.

Infowars gets more traffic than most mainstream media sites. He's one of the top radio shows in the nation, found on XM Radio, FM, and AM.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:24:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
let me guess, you got this from infowars
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:28:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
popular = accurate.

Your assumption =/= My stance.

I never said that popular = accurate nor was it implied. I'm saying that because it's true, it is growing. Because it was true prior to gaining noteriety. I'm not saying "oh look, all the past false statements and info he said is now true because more people visit his site!" C'mon get real.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:55:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:46:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I'm guessing this means I'll have to debunk infowars articles more and more often?

You haven't debunked a single Infowars article in your life.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:39:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:28:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
popular = accurate.

Your assumption =/= My stance.

I never said that popular = accurate nor was it implied. I'm saying that because it's true, it is growing. Because it was true prior to gaining noteriety. I'm not saying "oh look, all the past false statements and info he said is now true because more people visit his site!" C'mon get real.

So, because the Tea Party got really popular back in 10-11, they were right?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:11:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:00:39 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, because the Tea Party got really popular back in 10-11, they were right?

No. That is the opposite of what I'm saying. You people are dumb as fvck and deliberately intellectually dishonest.

I never once said that being popular = true. I'm saying that Infowars main reason for getting big is because it hits hard with truth. Other things get popular for other reasons. CNN and Fox are popular because they have big money financial backers and link to the government. Some things are big because of other factors, but for Infowars it's hard-hitting truth.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:11:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:00:39 PM, OberHerr wrote:
So, because the Tea Party got really popular back in 10-11, they were right?

No. That is the opposite of what I'm saying. You people are dumb as fvck and deliberately intellectually dishonest.

I never once said that being popular = true. I'm saying that Infowars main reason for getting big is because it hits hard with truth. Other things get popular for other reasons. CNN and Fox are popular because they have big money financial backers and link to the government. Some things are big because of other factors, but for Infowars it's hard-hitting truth.

Could you prove that InfoWars is getting popular while spouting the truth while CNN is popular because it is a liar?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:55:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:46:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I'm guessing this means I'll have to debunk infowars articles more and more often?

You haven't debunked a single Infowars article in your life.

Yeah, like the one that said the legal text that protected private ownership and use of guns, really was banning it. Get real.

Just because it's on infowars DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:28:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:13:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Could you prove that InfoWars is getting popular while spouting the truth while CNN is popular because it is a liar?

Infowars is saying the sky is blue and a growing number of people like that it states simple, tangible facts like that. CNN isn't popular because it lies, it's popular because it has a lot of big money financing it and getting on widely nationally viewed cable network.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 11:00:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source.

Just because Infowars is right every once in a while does not mean they should be viewed as a source for accurate information and/or insightful persepectives. My problem with the clips I have seen is they use anger to evoke an emotional response, numbing your critical thinking, then they tell you their story, which has logical/factual errors. But, because you're so angry, you don't notice.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 2:18:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 11:00:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source.

Just because Infowars is right every once in a while does not mean they should be viewed as a source for accurate information and/or insightful persepectives. My problem with the clips I have seen is they use anger to evoke an emotional response, numbing your critical thinking, then they tell you their story, which has logical/factual errors. But, because you're so angry, you don't notice.

Every word said here is false. You are false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 7:01:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 2:18:42 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 11:00:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source.

Just because Infowars is right every once in a while does not mean they should be viewed as a source for accurate information and/or insightful persepectives. My problem with the clips I have seen is they use anger to evoke an emotional response, numbing your critical thinking, then they tell you their story, which has logical/factual errors. But, because you're so angry, you don't notice.

Every word said here is false. You are false.

What is false, my logic or my commentary?

I have a hard time believing my logic is false. Being right occasionally does not mean you are right often enough to warrant credibility.

As far as my commentary, how can you say that I am false for what I have witnessed? You don't know me, nor do you know what clips I have seen. Perhaps I have only seen him at his worst. If this is the case, I may have formed an unjust opinion, but I am not false, as I have only stated what I have seen.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:47:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 11:00:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source.

The Drudge Report is a highly respected, credible news source so when they post Infowars articles, it lends credence to Infowars.

Just because Infowars is right every once in a while does not mean they should be viewed as a source for accurate information and/or insightful persepectives.

Infowars is not a prediction site. Every article they post is about current events that are happening now or have happened. They are right because everything they post has tangible basis with cited sources for each claim. The only time they have predictions is when they have an insider whistleblower come to the studio and reveal a future event. They don't have imaginations over there.

My problem with the clips I have seen is they use anger to evoke an emotional response, numbing your critical thinking,

False. Alex Jones reports on atrocities that DO happen and then sometimes get mad at it. And when confronted for getting angry, he says, the CPS abusing and raping children doesn't make you mad?! The government killing children in the middle east doesn't make you mad?! Flouride in drinking water doesn't make you mad?! Violating the Constitution and spying on everyone doesn't make you mad?!

How can you fault him when you know what he knows.

then they tell you their story, which has logical/factual errors.

False. No logical/factual errors. They occasionally make human mistakes, and they correct and address any mistakes made.

But, because you're so angry, you don't notice.

I listen to his 2 hour XM Radio broadcast everyday and he never yells or gets angry. He just has a few popular rants on Youtube of him yelling and you commit the generalization fallacy of taking a small sample of his audio and using it to claim he does it all the time.

You talk all this talk about fallacies and factual errors yet you have committed both.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:38:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 10:47:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 11:00:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source.

The Drudge Report is a highly respected, credible news source so when they post Infowars articles, it lends credence to Infowars.

If Drudge is respected and credible (I never looked at it), then it does give credence. I never said it didn't. I simply stated that just because it is cited, doesn't give the source enough credence to be credible all the time. Michael Moore is right about a few things, it doesn't mean his documentaries are 100% correct, or even close to that.

Just because Infowars is right every once in a while does not mean they should be viewed as a source for accurate information and/or insightful persepectives.

Infowars is not a prediction site. Every article they post is about current events that are happening now or have happened. They are right because everything they post has tangible basis with cited sources for each claim. The only time they have predictions is when they have an insider whistleblower come to the studio and reveal a future event. They don't have imaginations over there.

You once cited the U.N. is coming for our guns because they passed/tried to pass a treaty. Infowars is predicting that the treaty will pass, and they will use it. Commentary of a slippery slope is prediction, regardless of the basis; the slope has yet to occur, therefore it is not reporting, it is predicting.
Just because I cite a source does not mean anything. Using Alex Jones' logic, if I cite a .gov website, my conclusion from that info is likely not true because the information is likely false. Why is he the only one that can know what is true?


My problem with the clips I have seen is they use anger to evoke an emotional response, numbing your critical thinking,

False. Alex Jones reports on atrocities that DO happen and then sometimes get mad at it. And when confronted for getting angry, he says, the CPS abusing and raping children doesn't make you mad?! The government killing children in the middle east doesn't make you mad?! Flouride in drinking water doesn't make you mad?! Violating the Constitution and spying on everyone doesn't make you mad?!

How can you fault him when you know what he knows.

I don't know what he knows.
Using your examples:
So, the police "rescue" children, only to rape them in the squad room? Or is this referring to the numerous complaints of sexual misconduct with foster parents? If it is the latter, it is not the CPS that abuses the children, isn't it? They may be to blame (as they intervened and placed the children), but they did not do the raping.

Flouride has been in the water for quite some time now. It was there to help with dental issues with the poor (reinforcing teeth). There does seem to be issues with it now, studies show flouride is bad or something. This is not new, nor is it conspiracy, but, yes, he can be mad if the flouride program is not yet terminated.

I had no idea the gov't was targeting children for death. Or is this collateral damage? I do not say rappers are killing mimes, simply because a drive by shot a mime while shooting at their intended target.

If any of my counters are true, Alex is still telling the truth, but with spin; spin used to evoke an emotional response. This makes him not credible.

then they tell you their story, which has logical/factual errors.

False. No logical/factual errors. They occasionally make human mistakes, and they correct and address any mistakes made.
So, they make no logical or factual errors, but they make mistakes that are not these? What mistake could they possibly make that needs to be corrected, if not one of fact?

But, because you're so angry, you don't notice.

I listen to his 2 hour XM Radio broadcast everyday and he never yells or gets angry. He just has a few popular rants on Youtube of him yelling and you commit the generalization fallacy of taking a small sample of his audio and using it to claim he does it all the time.
I never said he yells; I said he uses anger. He incites an emotional response from the listener, and as a result, the listener is less critical.

And, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant the listener. I should have chosen my words more better ;)

You talk all this talk about fallacies and factual errors yet you have committed both.

I did not make any such error. I very clearly stated that my commentary was based on "the clips I have seen", therefore I have weakened any arguments I formulate using this data. The better criticism would be "since you haven't seen much, who cares what you think?".

However, aren't you making the same generalization phallacy? By noting that some stories of his are being passed around, why does this mean ALL his reportings are deserving of such recognition?
Besides, who cares what others do, aren't they to be not trusted? If so, doesn't this hurt Alex Jones' arguments regarding their lack of trustworthiness?






.
.
.
.
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 2:23:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:55:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:46:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I'm guessing this means I'll have to debunk infowars articles more and more often?

You haven't debunked a single Infowars article in your life.

Your ability to shield yourself from what others say by covering your ears while screaming "la la la" does not mean that your claims were not debunked. Private ownership of guns were never banned, and Norman Mineta never claimed to witness a stand down order. You can close your eyes, cover your ears, do whatever you want, but that is the reality of the world you live in.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 10:03:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 2:23:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
Your ability to shield yourself from what others say by covering your ears while screaming "la la la" does not mean that your claims were not debunked.

Are you telling me that writing this 5 paragraph rebuttal ( http://www.debate.org... ) is plugging my ears? GTFO. Learn before you spew ignorant bullsh!t.

Private ownership of guns were never banned,

Never said that. I said the U.N. Small Arms Treaty attempts to ban guns.

"Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

http://www.forbes.com...

and Norman Mineta never claimed to witness a stand down order.

False. http://www.infowars.com...

You can close your eyes, cover your ears, do whatever you want, but that is the reality of the world you live in.

You are the one closing your eyes, covering your ears, but you open your mouth and nothing but bullsh!t comes out.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 10:44:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 10:03:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You are the one closing your eyes, covering your ears, but you open your mouth and nothing but bullsh!t comes out.

The only person around here who only speaks bullsh*t around here would be you Geo.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 11:03:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:38:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/30/2012 10:47:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Drudge Report is a highly respected, credible news source so when they post Infowars articles, it lends credence to Infowars.

If Drudge is respected and credible (I never looked at it), then it does give credence. I never said it didn't. I simply stated that just because it is cited, doesn't give the source enough credence to be credible all the time. Michael Moore is right about a few things, it doesn't mean his documentaries are 100% correct, or even close to that.

Even if I granted that, it is irrelevant to the fact that Infowars stands on its own merit, its own well documented, well-written pieces.

Infowars is not a prediction site. Every article they post is about current events that are happening now or have happened. They are right because everything they post has tangible basis with cited sources for each claim. The only time they have predictions is when they have an insider whistleblower come to the studio and reveal a future event. They don't have imaginations over there.

You once cited the U.N. is coming for our guns because they passed/tried to pass a treaty. Infowars is predicting that the treaty will pass, and they will use it.

Completely and utterly FALSE. You are just making sh!t up. Alex Jones says it all the time "They might just be just saber-rattling, I hope they don't follow through on this." And he points out that a lot of times they don't follow through on parts of the agenda because he blew it wide open and then they back-peddle on it and don't follow through.

That's why his site is called Infowars. When he gets the word out, the agenda slows down.

Commentary of a slippery slope is prediction, regardless of the basis; the slope has yet to occur, therefore it is not reporting, it is predicting.

Youre making that up. All his articles talk about what already has happened. His journalists are journalists, not trend forecasters. They write on current events but you can't get that through your head.

Sometimes Alex Jones on his show will make an occassional prediction, but he will admit that it's just a prediction, he doesn't have the Infowars writers go write a piece on his prediction and pass it off as news. That is NOT what he does.

Just because I cite a source does not mean anything. Using Alex Jones' logic, if I cite a .gov website, my conclusion from that info is likely not true because the information is likely false. Why is he the only one that can know what is true?

That makes no sense. Alex Jones is not the only one that can know what is true. He puts all the information out there for everyone to have this knowledge, plus, he never claims to be the only who knows what is true. He's actually quite humble. Not to mention he has hundreds of guests on his show who he brings on for their insight, their information. He doesn't bring guests on to teach them a lesson.

False. Alex Jones reports on atrocities that DO happen and then sometimes get mad at it. And when confronted for getting angry, he says, the CPS abusing and raping children doesn't make you mad?! The government killing children in the middle east doesn't make you mad?! Flouride in drinking water doesn't make you mad?! Violating the Constitution and spying on everyone doesn't make you mad?!

How can you fault him when you know what he knows.

I don't know what he knows.
Using your examples:
So, the police "rescue" children, only to rape them in the squad room? Or is this referring to the numerous complaints of sexual misconduct with foster parents? If it is the latter, it is not the CPS that abuses the children, isn't it? They may be to blame (as they intervened and placed the children), but they did not do the raping.

Flouride has been in the water for quite some time now. It was there to help with dental issues with the poor (reinforcing teeth). There does seem to be issues with it now, studies show flouride is bad or something. This is not new, nor is it conspiracy, but, yes, he can be mad if the flouride program is not yet terminated.

I had no idea the gov't was targeting children for death. Or is this collateral damage? I do not say rappers are killing mimes, simply because a drive by shot a mime while shooting at their intended target.

If any of my counters are true, Alex is still telling the truth, but with spin; spin used to evoke an emotional response. This makes him not credible.

It would look like that on the surface but again, there is so much more information that you have to know before you realize that what he's saying is true. You would think that they aren't purposely snatching and raping kids, but you don't know about all the government officials and paedophillia, the Royal family and paedophillia, the Catholic Church and paedophillia, etc. David Icke was talking about politicians, priests, and paedophillia 7 years ago, now it's becoming mainstream news. Look up Jimmy Seville.

You would think that fluoridating the water had good intentions for your teeth, but then you find out that the U.N. and other global elites saying they want the population reduced, that food is the biggest weapon, etc. Harvard studies that have been out for a while saying flouridation is bad for your brain sms health, even the small traces in your drinking water. Then you find that Monsanto (mega GMO food corporation funded by Bill Gates) fired scientists that found that GMO is bad and gave rats enormous tumors.

There is so much more to this to know, then you will see why he gets angry, then you'll see why that it's not spin.

I never said he yells; I said he uses anger. He incites an emotional response from the listener, and as a result, the listener is less critical.

Again, I disagree. He has the brightest minds on his show. He has economists, intelligence officials, scientists, political scientists, researchers, authors, former officials, and other great thinkers on his show.

Besides, who cares what others do, aren't they to be not trusted? If so, doesn't this hurt Alex Jones' arguments regarding their lack of trustworthiness?

Who's trustworthiness? It's not some big mystery as to who to trust and who not to trust. He doesn't make arguments about trustworthiness, I dont even know what your talking about.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:52:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 10:03:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/31/2012 2:23:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
Your ability to shield yourself from what others say by covering your ears while screaming "la la la" does not mean that your claims were not debunked.

Are you telling me that writing this 5 paragraph rebuttal ( http://www.debate.org... ) is plugging my ears? GTFO. Learn before you spew ignorant bullsh!t.

I never saw that post so I'll give you that. But tell me, why would you start a new topic and write a 5 paragraph post defending your belief on a given subject, then when when someone comes along and responds showing you how ridiculous your claim is you don't bother to respond? Then on top of it you come back a month later saying that he never proved you wrong? Yes he did.

Your entire case was essentially that the treaty did not specify self defense in it's list of legitimate uses, meanwhile the treaty uses the term "inter alia" which is specifically used in law for the purpose of making it clear that all legitimate conditions are not specified. Your basically saying "well self defense might not be included", and you back that possibility up with your own conspiratorial beliefs of what they intended. Law does not work that way, treaty's are not an exercise in mind reading. If you want to write a law that bans guns, it has to say that guns are banned for it to have that effect.


and Norman Mineta never claimed to witness a stand down order.

False. http://www.infowars.com...

Here we go again. We already discussed that video. Your article headline claims that he "confirms" a stand down order, yet if you actually read the article you would see that no where in the article do they actually explain that. I would go further into detail but there is nothing for me to refute. Please see our previous discussion that you disappeared from...
http://debate.org...

You are the one closing your eyes, covering your ears...

Geo, I haven't gone anywhere. I have responded to every argument you made. You ran away. This is so typical with conspiracy theorists... when you are proven wrong, run away and hope that everyone will forget about it later so that you can make the same already dis-proven argument.

Guns for self defense have not been banned, and Norman Mineta never claimed to witness a stand down order. Are you now going to prove me wrong, or just run away so you can bring it up another month from now?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 8:21:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 11:03:12 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Drudge Report is a highly respected, credible news source so when they post Infowars articles, it lends credence to Infowars.

If Drudge is respected and credible (I never looked at it), then it does give credence. I never said it didn't. I simply stated that just because it is cited, doesn't give the source enough credence to be credible all the time. Michael Moore is right about a few things, it doesn't mean his documentaries are 100% correct, or even close to that.

Even if I granted that, it is irrelevant to the fact that Infowars stands on its own merit, its own well documented, well-written pieces.

Regardless if it stands on its own merit, it does not invalidate my statement of "News source being cited by other news sources =/= credible news source".

You started this thread by saying infowars is credible because of its use in other news sources. You did not say that it is credible in its own right, and if it is, then its being quoted is irrelevant. My point still stands.


Infowars is not a prediction site. Every article they post is about current events that are happening now or have happened. They are right because everything they post has tangible basis with cited sources for each claim. The only time they have predictions is when they have an insider whistleblower come to the studio and reveal a future event. They don't have imaginations over there.


You once cited the U.N. is coming for our guns because they passed/tried to pass a treaty. Infowars is predicting that the treaty will pass, and they will use it.

Completely and utterly FALSE. You are just making sh!t up. Alex Jones says it all the time "They might just be just saber-rattling, I hope they don't follow through on this." And he points out that a lot of times they don't follow through on parts of the agenda because he blew it wide open and then they back-peddle on it and don't follow through.
So, "they might just be saber-rattling" is reporting on the news? No, because he is guessing; this is commentary or analysis, not reporting. "They might just be saber-rattling" also sounds like a prediction, as he doesn't seem to know what their intentions are.


That's why his site is called Infowars. When he gets the word out, the agenda slows down.

What a great marketing campaign! "We overhype the news and make rash analyses, and when it doesn't transpire the way we feared, that is because of our exposing their plan, which may or may not be related. But if we made mistakes in our analyses and warned against a non-existent threat, it still didn't transpire because of us."

Commentary of a slippery slope is prediction, regardless of the basis; the slope has yet to occur, therefore it is not reporting, it is predicting.

Youre making that up. All his articles talk about what already has happened. His journalists are journalists, not trend forecasters. They write on current events but you can't get that through your head.

Sometimes Alex Jones on his show will make an occassional prediction, but he will admit that it's just a prediction, he doesn't have the Infowars writers go write a piece on his prediction and pass it off as news. That is NOT what he does.

He speaks on his show for two hours and says only the news?!? He does not offer analysis, insight, or predictions? I know of no talk show that does not do this.

I listen to Jason Lewis. He starts off by talking about something (or 3 or 4) in the news, gives his take on it, and open the phone lines. This is not journalism nor news, it is commentary, which is open to mistakes and bias.

Just because I cite a source does not mean anything. Using Alex Jones' logic, if I cite a .gov website, my conclusion from that info is likely not true because the information is likely false. Why is he the only one that can know what is true?

That makes no sense. Alex Jones is not the only one that can know what is true. He puts all the information out there for everyone to have this knowledge, plus, he never claims to be the only who knows what is true. He's actually quite humble. Not to mention he has hundreds of guests on his show who he brings on for their insight, their information. He doesn't bring guests on to teach them a lesson.


False. Alex Jones reports on atrocities that DO happen and then sometimes get mad at it. And when confronted for getting angry, he says, the CPS abusing and raping children doesn't make you mad?! The government killing children in the middle east doesn't make you mad?! Flouride in drinking water doesn't make you mad?! Violating the Constitution and spying on everyone doesn't make you mad?!

How can you fault him when you know what he knows.

I don't know what he knows.

So, the police "rescue" children, only to rape them in the squad room? Or is this referring to the numerous complaints of sexual misconduct with foster parents? If it is the latter, it is not the CPS that abuses the children, isn't it? They may be to blame (as they intervened and placed the children), but they did not do the raping.


It would look like that on the surface but again, there is so much more information that you have to know before you realize that what he's saying is true. You would think that they aren't purposely snatching and raping kids, but you don't know about all the government officials and paedophillia, the Royal family and paedophillia, the Catholic Church and paedophillia, etc. David Icke was talking about politicians, priests, and paedophillia 7 years ago, now it's becoming mainstream news. Look up Jimmy Seville.

Perfect example!!! What does any of this have to do with social workers in the CPS? The church is not CPS, nor is Jimmy Seville, nor are politicians, nor the Royal family. The fact that they are lumped in is evoking an emotional response.

The truth behind this misleading statement is probably foster parents molest their "children" more than parents do. So, CPS inadvertently puts these kids in harm's way. Instead of saying this, Alex Jones says the police are raping your kids. How is this not evoking an emotional response? It is truth by spin.

There is so much more to this to know, then you will see why he gets angry, then you'll see why that it's not spin.
I never said he doesn't have a right to be upset. My problem is he uses anger to make illogical connections, like a ban on exporting guns (U.N. treaty) is code for domestic disarmament by an international group.


I never said he yells; I said he uses anger. He incites an emotional response from the listener, and as a result, the listener is less critical.

Again, I disagree. He has the brightest minds on his show. He has economists, intelligence officials, scientists, political scientists, researchers, authors, former officials, and other great thinkers on his show.

So? You say he is merely reporting the news, why does he need thinkers on the show?
The reason is because he pulls different stories together, and makes a connection. These connections may range from "quite logical" to "leap of faith". You agree with him, I do not, that is irrelevant. The fact is, he is more than a simple news reporter, as you like to claim he is.

And for the record, this is something most radio personalities do. I do not like most of them, but I listen to find the kernal of truth that exists, analyze it myself, and draw my own conclusions. I am rarely swayed with emotion, and this is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, Mark Levin, and Mike Malloy.

I prefer my news with reason mixed with a little bias, by the likes of Jason Lewis, Rush Limbaugh, and Norman Goldman.
If there was anyone I would stake my claim on, it would be Mike McConnell
My work here is, finally, done.