alex jones

More evidence on this forum that 'Care in the community' doesn't work :p

Perhaps OcUK could create a subforum for Magick and his equally gullable loonie compatriots so they don't come in here bothering us sane people?
 
the Bank of England are PRIVATE run for profit organisations)
No its not "As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly."
You are so deluded it is not funny anymore.
 
No, that's a false conclusion. I don't know how much you know about the Bilderberg group, but since you have no idea what I've read or how I've studied the Bilderberg Group, you have no basis for saying how much I do and do not know about it.



Absolutely. I've read a good deal about the Bilderberg Group; I've even read a first hand account from a guy who managed to enter the hotel where one of their meetings was held, videoed some of its members, and described what they do when they get together. It's all rather banal, to be honest.




Well, duh.


So, your certainty that nothing happens within the meetings is based on 'a guy' who infiltrated the meetings, covertly videoed the members, and then made a report upon his findings? Sounds awfully similar to the tactics employed by Mr Jones to me. How can you have the audacity to suggest that your 'guy' is any more credible than Alex Jones?

I suppose you could use the old 'he's independently verifiable'; using what verification method? Because he works for a trusted organization (say, I dunno, the government...?)? Well, we know the problems that arise when we use that as the beacon of truth. How about the call that he is independent as he works for an independent agency? Like Alex Jones! If you're going to call out conspiracy theorists as having no verifiable data, at least make sure your source doesn't fall at the same hurdle.

What's that supposed to mean? On what basis do you make this claim? Where's your evidence that my facts are not facts at all? Where's your proof? Where's your verifiable data?

I guess this comes down to what you consider as 'knowledge'. Using Berserkers example. Do you know the moon is not made of cheese? How do you know? Because you can see it? Optical illusions can distort what you can see - surely this casts doubt.. Because you have read 'official' reports from NASA? Oh, yes 'NASA'; the trusted government agency? Try again. Because you have read it from independent sources, like say Buzz Aldrin? Verifiable through who, oh yes, NASA (or other space program records). Again, corruptible and certainly not infallible.

The above is a silly example, I know. There is only one possible way that you can be sure that you know something, and that is by experiencing it yourself. Have you experienced what it is like to be in a Bilderberg meeting? By your own admittance, the answer is 'No'.

You can sit here and argue that you have 'researched' it for 50 years for all I care, but unless you have experienced it yourself, I can always counter with 'Well how do you know that your sources are genuine', 'How do you know, for certain, what goes on?' 'How do you know the moon isn't made of cheese.

This isn't a debate about Obama in my eyes. Nor 9/11, NWO, Freemasonry, Illuminati or any of that nonsense. It's about people like you who profess to 'knowing' more than the conspiracy theorists, when in reality you know just the same.

Again, call me out on the 'making assumptions' part, it never gets old.
 
More evidence on this forum that 'Care in the community' doesn't work :p

Perhaps OcUK could create a subforum for Magick and his equally gullable loonie compatriots so they don't come in here bothering us sane people?

Way to go. How about you try reading/getting involved instead of being an objective outsider? It's easy to pass 'witty' comments (care in the community OHLOLOL), without having the balls to say your bit.

Yes there are many threads where magick et al write complete nonsense, but this has turned into a rather good and enjoyable debate. Maybe we should set up a childrens' forum for you and your 'equally childish compatriots' so you don't come in here bothering us debating people?
 
He makes claims that he never even tries to substantiate. He just says stuff and expects you to assume that it's all true. How dumb can people be? :confused:

If your referring to me, your a liar. As clearly i stated "if you believe this or not" implying make up your own mind.
 
Perhaps OcUK could create a subforum for Magick and his equally gullable loonie compatriots so they don't come in here bothering us sane people?

That's the great thing about having free will, you chose to click this link and read. Next time i suggest you don't bother and save us the useless post. :rolleyes:
 
Fus, out of interest, if you don't believe the evidence provided by the conspiracy side nor that provided by the counter argument side, just how do you arrive at a judgement? I'm curious, nothing more.

Oh, good. Teki has arrived :rolleyes:
 
If your referring to me, your a liar. As clearly i stated "if you believe this or not" implying make up your own mind.

I was referring to Alex Jones, as the context clearly demonstrates. :confused: :rolleyes:

Keltik THC said:

Keltik THC said:
its funny, all the criticism i ever see against Alex Jones is always personal opinion, for instance in the 8 odd years i have known of him i have never read any criticism taking a specific point he has made and then discredited it, the reason, is because they cannot.

I responded:

Evangelion said:
Er, what? You obviously didn't read the other thread (here) in which his nonsensical fantasy world was systematically demolished.

He makes claims that he never even tries to substantiate. He just says stuff and expects you to assume that it's all true. How dumb can people be?

That's about Alex Jones, Teki. Not you.
 
I hope you also understand the difference between people who believe in the conspiracy theories without bothering to check the facts and people who dismiss the conspiracy theories after proving them wrong.

I do, I do - hence why I said:

I have the same amount of contempt for both the people who blindly believe in the conspiracy theories, and the people who dismiss the conspiracy theories out of hand.

That is, people who believe the conspiracy theories without conducting research, and the people who dismiss them without doing their research.

Obviously you do your homework, and it's to be admired. However, you go against my principle of "always remain sceptical, and never make your mind up", so you lose points there :p
 
[FnG]magnolia;13719631 said:
Fus, out of interest, if you don't believe the evidence provided by the conspiracy side nor that provided by the counter argument side, just how do you arrive at a judgement? I'm curious, nothing more.

Oh, good. Teki has arrived :rolleyes:


I never said I don't believe :p

I think, if I'm honest, that there is some credibility to both sides of the coin. I think that Alex Jones is waaay off the mark with his assumptions, but then again I don't think that the Obama camp are totally honest. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the conspiracy theorists on the claim of 'integrity of evidence', as both sides suffer this criticism.

To be perfectly truthful, I don't really care. Obama may be a puppet, but if he is, there's not a lot you or I can do about the decisions he (or the people behind the scenes) will make. Power is a strange thing.

I do find groups such as the Bilderberg interesting; purely out of speculation regarding what they do talk about. Daft questions like 'If it's nothing serious, why so secretive?' - Why do confirmed members deny their presence at the meetings, and so on.

No doubt it's not as interesting as Alex Jones makes out, though. Just it might not be as innocent as the others make out, either.

I don't profess to knowing enough about it to make a judgment, but similarly I don't dismiss either side outright as 'conspiracy'.
 
im totally confused by your logic, i shall repeat myself:

Keltik THC said:
edit: just coming back to this, so are you guys trying to tell me that Obama hasnt filled every position in his staff with Lobbyists? are you trying to tell me that he has removed all the troops from Iraq? are you trying to tell me that he has decreased the size of government? are you trying to tell me that hes revoked the illegal wire tapping? are you telling me he has rescinded a number of the PDs that gave Bush & Cheney (and now Obama & Biden) dictatorial like powers? or are you just denying reality for some personal reason?

I'm not saying any of that, and I'm not denying reality. Please don't put words into my mouth. And please familiarise yourself with Obama's campaign promises before you start talking about what he's kept and what he's broken. I've already posted a link to an online checklist, so you can look them up yourself. Can't say fairer than that.

In any case, none of what you're written here provides any evidence for the claim that Obama is somehow linked to an evil plot by the Bilderberg Group, so what's your point?

you dont seem to understand how a debate works, i have stated that i agree with the content put forth in the Obama Deception which is basically concerning all his complete 'U-turns' in policy (see quote above)

But you haven't demonstrated that Obama has actually made any u-turns in policy. Now, I've tried to help you by posting a source which lists all of his campaign promises, and that source even states that he has broken three of those promises (see the link here). What you need to do is read that list, identify the promises which relate to the argument you're making, and show that those promises have not been kept. Until you do that, you don't actually have a case.

but you still refuse to actually call out any of these facts and continually resort to just generally saying 'prove it!', but you wont actually specify what you want me to prove

I've told you what I want you to prove. I want you to provide evidence for every single one of the claims made by Alex Jones in his little movie. That's all I'm asking for. I also want you to provide a list of campaign promises that Obama has broken (and please realise that I agree he has broken some of them) and cross-reference them to that online "campaign promise" checklist, so we can both be sure that you're actually talking about legitimate campaign promises which were actually made.

i have experienced the short end of the stick from you, i know when you start getting owned in a debate you then resort to getting the mods to delete posts and ban members.

Er, no. You broke the rules by repeatedly insulting me, and I complained to one of the moderators, who subsequently acted on my complaint. I didn't ask anyone to delete your posts or ban you. That was the moderator's decision; not mine.

You are very strange my freind, denying reality to the 9th degree, why do you decieve yourself so much? i mean, to repeat myself for a third time you are seriously trying to tell me that Obama hasnt filled every position in his staff with Lobbyists? you trying to tell me that he has removed all the troops from Iraq? you trying to tell me that he has decreased the size of government? you trying to tell me that hes revoked the illegal wire tapping? are you telling me he has rescinded a number of the PDs that gave Bush & Cheney (and now Obama & Biden) dictatorial like powers? you are trying to tell me that he has stopped the practice of extra-ordinary rendition?

No, I am not saying any of that. Read my posts. I haven't even mentioned these issues.

i know for a fact that Obama has filled almost every single position in his staff with Lobbyists

Well, I don't know about "filled". I haven't seen any evidence of that. But I am certain that there's plenty of lobbyists in his staff (or at least people connected to lobbyists). Every government does this, unfortunately. It doesn't prove that they're part of an international conspiracy.

i know for a fact that Obama hasnt removed the troops from Iraq

That's correct; he has not. These things take time; you can't withdraw troops overnight, and Obama didn't say that he would. He committed to a phased withdrawal over time, which is precisely what he is doing.

i know for a fact that he has increased the size of Government (remind me how many robbery, i mean 'bail out' packages he has forced through?)

He hasn't "forced through" any bailout packages.

i know for a fact he hasnt revoked the illegal wiretapping, i know for a fact he hasnt rescinded a number of PDs that give him and Biden dictitorial powers, i know for a fact he hasnt stopped teh practise of rendition, how do i know all this? because Obama admits it, its on the news, its common knowledge if you follow American Politics, hell even people like Keith Olbermann the ultra-liberal fawner has questioned Obama's complete 180 on his campaign promises.

Can you document these facts for me, please? Can you list the campaign promises in which Obama said that he would do all of this stuff? Did he provide a timeframe for these actions?

What "dictatorial powers" are you referring to? Do you know what "dictatorial" means? And what campaign promises has Obama performed a "complete 180" on? I've given you a link to a comprehensive list, so it shouldn't be hard for you to specify them.

i guess it just goes over the top of your head, let me try to explain the evdience that Alex Jones uses in this documentary is the facts regarding Obamas policies, he promised 'change', he promised all the things i mentioned above before he was elected and he has done the complete opposite

He's been in power for less than three months; there's no way he can get everything done in that time. Do you not understand how government works?

He got more campaign contributions from the International Banking Elite than anybody, he was selected by the foundations at an early age and sheep dipped

Proof for all of this, please?

he then dupes the press to nip off to secret Bilderberg meetings

Er, no. He dodged the press to meet Hillary Clinton. There was subsequent speculation that he had met with the Bilderberg Group, but nobody has provided any evidence that he actually did.

Alex then goes on to the next logical step that people who have an understanding of politics understand because in the world of politics you cant even imagine how much intrigue is involved, people have hidden alliances, people are bought and paid for, people have enemies and its all done behind the scenes if you look into any political regime behind the media facade you will find this

Or, to put it more accurately, Alex makes a huge illogical leap to a nonsensical conclusion based on nothing more than conjecture, fantasy and imagination.

im just trting to say that the world is not as simple as you try and make it out to be

I don't recall making any statements of that nature.

and Obama has proven that he is a corporate schill purely by his actions and the pure fact every time he opens his mouth he seems to either lie or do a complete 180 on his policies he stated when campaigning.

Well, the current checklist (to which I've provided a link) shows that he's only broken three election promises so far. Which is probably very disappointing for you, but at least it's a verifiable fact.

Ive said since day 1, if you hate G.W. then you are going to loathe Obama - for instance, i work with a Pakistani, when Obama was elected i told him to watch out for an increase in activity in his Country to which he said, 'you crazy conspiracy theorists - Obamas great' (im a conspiracy theorist because i research political matters) to which now he says 'how did you know?!? the US is basically in the north of our country killing people on a daily basis'

Your friend is obviously an idiot. During his campaign, Obama openly stated that he would maintain the attacks on targets in Pakistan:


Biden, in an interview with CBS news, defended the strikes, saying that [n]Obama had repeatedly said on the campaign trail he would not hesitate to strike against any high-level al-Qaida targets.[/n] He suggested cooperation between the US and Pakistani counter-terrorist agencies would increase, with more US training for Pakistani counterparts.

Over the last year, there have been at least 30 US missile attacks on Pakistan's tribal area, which is used as a haven for insurgents fighting international troops in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Source.

Does your friend not watch the news, perhaps? Didn't he listen to Obama when he was campaigning?

how did i know?

Er, because you watch the news, just like I do? Because Obama announced his intentions to tens of millions of people while he was on the campaign trail? That's how I knew, and I suspect it's how most people knew. This was never a secret; it was stated publicly on a number of occasions.

because i know the agenda of the people behind Barak like Brzenski, because i have taken the time to read their memoirs and their books, the funny thing is they dont lie about their intentions they just know that you are too concerned about bread and circus to read it.

Oh, I thought it was because you actually listened to Obama when he told people that this was what he intended to do. I guess you chose the hard way, right?

thats it though, unless you finally come back with a specific point that you disagree with so that we can debate i shall continue to ignore you, but then again your posts serve one purpose to me... they continually remind me why the world as we know it is going down the pan at an increasing rate because majority of people are as delusional and niave as you and believe that the powers that be are benevolent people that every action they take is for the best possible interests of all free humanity and they are working to ensure the lives of everyone are to be as rich and prosperous as possible and for us all to be living life on a bed of roses, when in reality i believe that the international banking elite is working against the middle class and populations in general to consolodate the wealth of nations into as few hands as possible whilst consolidating their power positions and investments and generally buying up our countries through infrastructure which funnily enough is ensuring our chattel slave status for generations to come... of course thats never happend in history before has it? :rolleyes:

OK, whatever. :)

Try not to watch so much Hollywood. You'll end up believing everything you see.
 
Last edited:
I skipped to a random segment, it was some nobody saying 16:25 "they even have elected officials saying they will put you in jail if they criticise Obama in public, he is a puppet"

If anyone can prove this, I will bow down and admit that a banking elite has taken over the world, but all this video is garbage, sputtering out nonsense with no backing up of anything.

Prove the bit I've quoted.
 
No its not "As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly."
You are so deluded it is not funny anymore.

hohum, yes i must be deluded because i dont believe the covering story that the Bank of England is a 'nationalised' orginisation, whilst i admit it is labelled as such on the surface, just as the Federal Reserve on the surface is 'Federal' they are both neither.

go and have a read of the major developments to the bank of England, they only 'nationalised' in 1947 but since 1997 they have been independent, how about you go and read about their history on their own website before trying to slander me.

here, ill do some of the leg work for you:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments5.htm

From The BankOfEngland.co.uk said:
1997: Bank now responsible for monetary policy
In 1997 the Government announced its intention to transfer full operational responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank of England. The Bank thus rejoined the ranks of the world's "independent" central banks. However, debt management on behalf of the Government was transferred to HM Treasury, and the Bank's regulatory functions passes to the new Financial Services Authority.

hmm... ''full operational responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank of England. The Bank thus rejoined the ranks of the world's "independent" central banks''


definition of delude said:
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that delude consumers into sending in money. See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.

you sir, are the deluded one, you sir are the one who just pasted the first thing he saw after googling 'bank of england'. Just because i actually spend some time to research how the world works and i go beyond the first page of a website to get a more informed picture of the situation does not make me deluded.
 
Last edited:
I skipped to a random segment, it was some nobody saying 16:25 "they even have elected officials saying they will put you in jail if they criticise Obama in public, he is a puppet"

If anyone can prove this, I will bow down and admit that a banking elite has taken over the world, but all this video is garbage, sputtering out nonsense with no backing up of anything.

Prove the bit I've quoted.


http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76438

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/...or-using-prosecutors-on-campaign-truth-squad/

http://xrlq.com/2008/09/26/fascist-jerk-of-the-day-robert-f-bauer/

you dont have to bow down to us, just do the research and get active.
 
Keltik, that's clutching at straws at the very best... a campaign runner with a legal team trying to aid said campaign by seeing what negative press over steps the mark? and that deserves a badly edited youtube videos with some interviews (minus the context) and some out of place quotes thrown in?
 

That doesn't prove anything other than hate speech and lying about a candidate were clamped down on in the full context of the law, and quite correctly so. That doesn't constitute criticising Obama, it is lying about him, telling falsehoods.

Try again, and try and find something with a little accuracy and not some right wing nuts blog, something with some authenticity or credibility at least, let alone something peer reviewed.
 
generally one requires proof positive before believing something. That new "belief" is weighed against the current belief system. Logic, common sense and judicious use of occam's razor keep out the crazies. (or it should)

re: the obama deception video; just about all of the things he did (basically doing a 180 on his campaign promises) its all bread and butter of being a politician.

No need at all to dream up an illuminati overgroup & alien co-conspirators manipulating the whole world with their evil insidious machinations.


edit:

btw is now a good time to mention that i was part of an elite "Remote Viewing" UK infriltration organisation involved in a "spiritual" quasi-occult cold war with the former USSR.







:D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom