Thread: F**k the Troops

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

Originally Posted by dajo

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

John Perkins is believed to hold whistle blower status. I don't know enough about him to say that what he claims is automatically false. Maybe it isn't. I was just responding to SKA's comment that he sees no reason John Perkins would be lying. My point was that economic hit men are not trustworthy people. So John Perkins is either lying about having been an economic hit man or really was an economic hit man and therefore is not trustworthy. His word alone is automatically worth very little.

It reminds me of the former Fox News employees who are interviewed in the film Outfoxed. They get on camera and pretty much say, "I used to be a big time liar. Listen to my story." Once a person admits that he made a career of being dishonest, isn't it too late for his claims alone to matter? He is either

1. telling the truth and has a history of grand level lying

or

2. lying