Alex Jones and Piers Morgan

Off Topic Politics, World Issues
42

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[
Then you have not watched much of that tabloid hack since he left England…he was given the boot because he was at the heart of the illegal wiretapping that got his two tabloids shut down and pretty much gave everybody the finger on his way over here.

Morgan called anybody who wanted to own a gun “was a damn fool” Kinda goes against the 2nd Ammendment…no?[/quote]

Wrong. He was fired as because he as a newspaper editor decided to run with pictures showing British soldiers engaging in Abu Graib-like torture of prisoners of war. There was insufficient validation as to the authenticity of the pictures and when they later on turned out to be false/photoshopped - he was given the boot.

43

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I need guns to protect myself from people like Jones, not some mythical tyrannical government that is allegedly going to take everything over.

I seriously wonder if Jones is taking any steps to prepare himself for this supposed tyrannical govt’s future takeover.

I wonder if he can stitch himself up without anesthetic in the wild. Can he field dress a wound without getting gangrene? Remove a bullet from a wound? Can he make a splint out of tree branches and set a broken limb in the middle of a forest? Is he familiar with propaganda techniques? Psychological warfare? Does he have a shitload of cash stashed anywhere? What about a bunch of gold and/or silver? Can he skin and gut an animal in the wild without contaminating the meat? Can he fish/hunt without a nice fishing rod or a gun? Does he know how to trap wild game? Can he identify poisonous plants and edible ones? Does he know where the nearest source of potable water is that doesn’t come from a reservoir?

Is he familiar with the terrain surrounding his neighborhood? Can he shoot straight? Does he have some sort of contingency plan, and has he been coordinating this with other like-minded individuals? Does he realize that IF the shit hits the fan, by virtue of his latest temper tantrum, he will be specifically targeted by this tyrannical govt? What is he going to use against the govt’s tanks and stealth jets and 1000lb bombs and drones and well-trained soldiers with night vision goggles and all that other fancy shit? Does he REALLY think his collection of hunting rifles and assault weapons are going to do one single fucking thing when the shit hits the fan and the govt rolls down his street in a bunch of Abrams tanks looking specifically for him?

I mean, what do people like him really think all the guns they stockpile in their bedroom are going to do for them when an F-22 drops a fucking 5000lb bomb through his living room window? Because if he thinks the tyrannical govt he speaks of is going to start shit with the sort of weaponry he might have a chance against, he’s a naive fool.

And if Jones thinks everything is going to be hunky-dory for him and he won’t need to be VERY well-versed in extensive survival skills if this supposed scenario unfolds, he is going to be one of the first to die when or if that scenario does unfold. So if he isn’t taking all the steps outlined above, and more, then he’s just an ignorant, paranoid fool who’s played too much Gears of War and spent too much time reading stuff by John Locke or Thomas Jefferson and not enough stuff about guerrilla warfare methods by guys like Che Guevara or Mao or Samuel B. Griffith or Vuich.[/quote]

Alex Jones is a raving lunatic who literally foams at the mouth. He has personally purported to believe that humans are controlled by ‘little elves’ from another planet, that fluoride is a ‘New World Order’ government mind control agent, that lightbulbs are listening to us, that the federal government runs child kidnapping rings and satanic pedophile cults, that the federal government plans to exterminate 90% of the population with the ebola virus sprayed from black helicopters etc. He supported Ron Paul of course, who actually won the election but it was covered up in yet another conspiracy. Jones also believes the moon landing was faked and that the federal government are creating homosexuals by adding xenoestrogens to our food. The only thing Alex Jones needs to prepare for is an indefinite stay in a mental institution and an anti-psychotic meds regime.

I don’t think he reads Locke. More likely David Icke.

44

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[
Then you have not watched much of that tabloid hack since he left England…he was given the boot because he was at the heart of the illegal wiretapping that got his two tabloids shut down and pretty much gave everybody the finger on his way over here.

Morgan called anybody who wanted to own a gun “was a damn fool” Kinda goes against the 2nd Ammendment…no?[/quote]

Wrong. He was fired as because he as a newspaper editor decided to run with pictures showing British soldiers engaging in Abu Graib-like torture of prisoners of war. There was insufficient validation as to the authenticity of the pictures and when they later on turned out to be false/photoshopped - he was given the boot.[/quote]

O Rly?

So he was not at the heart of the phone hacking invetigation that led to the shut down of the News of the World? And a net loss to Murdoch of over 400 million pounds?

Really?

45

Pierce Morgan/CNN perfectly used Alex Jones like the tool he is. The rant wasn’t a debate over current new gun-control legislation. This a textbook lesson in how the progressive left-wing sets a narrative. You will never see true conservatism, or libertarianism allowed to be presented in an intelligent and rational manner.

With a populace as ignorant as ours, why debate the truth with facts, when the perfect strawman is only one interview away?

46

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[
Then you have not watched much of that tabloid hack since he left England…he was given the boot because he was at the heart of the illegal wiretapping that got his two tabloids shut down and pretty much gave everybody the finger on his way over here.

Morgan called anybody who wanted to own a gun “was a damn fool” Kinda goes against the 2nd Ammendment…no?[/quote]

Wrong. He was fired as because he as a newspaper editor decided to run with pictures showing British soldiers engaging in Abu Graib-like torture of prisoners of war. There was insufficient validation as to the authenticity of the pictures and when they later on turned out to be false/photoshopped - he was given the boot.[/quote]

Nope. You do not know what you are talking about.

47

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Pierce Morgan/CNN perfectly used Alex Jones like the tool he is. The rant wasn’t a debate over current new gun-control legislation. This a textbook lesson in how the progressive left-wing sets a narrative. You will never see true conservatism, or libertarianism allowed to be presented in an intelligent and rational manner.

With a populace as ignorant as ours, why debate the truth with facts, when the perfect strawman is only one interview away? [/quote]

I agree with you about Conservative and Libertarians but I think you are missing it on Liberal. Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery . Libertarian is a derivative of the word Liberal

I also do not agree with the current definition of Conservative . IMO it came about from a strictly fiscal sense . So the terms Liberal Conservative would be tight with the money and Liberal with social liberties

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree with you about Conservative and Libertarians but I think you are missing it on Liberal. Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery . Libertarian is a derivative of the word Liberal[/quote]

In point of fact, I didn’t the word ‘liberal’. I try to never use it to describe radical left-wing progressivism.

Actually, Libertarian and Liberalism are derived from the same word. Some say it is French. Some say it is Greek, and some say it is Latin - but all tend to agree that the root word is “liber”, or free.

[quote]I also do not agree with the current definition of Conservative . IMO it came about from a strictly fiscal sense . So the terms Liberal Conservative would be tight with the money and Liberal with social liberties
[/quote]

I would think that the modern political definition of conservative has more of a social history than fiscal. I do know that the meaning of liberal has been bastardized beyond any semblance of it’s classic definition. But I do agree with your disagreement of our current definitions.

49

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree with you about Conservative and Libertarians but I think you are missing it on Liberal. Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery . Libertarian is a derivative of the word Liberal[/quote]

In point of fact, I didn’t the word ‘liberal’. I try to never use it to describe radical left-wing progressivism.

Actually, Libertarian and Liberalism are derived from the same word. Some say it is French. Some say it is Greek, and some say it is Latin - but all tend to agree that the root word is “liber”, or free.

[quote]I also do not agree with the current definition of Conservative . IMO it came about from a strictly fiscal sense . So the terms Liberal Conservative would be tight with the money and Liberal with social liberties
[/quote]

I would think that the modern political definition of conservative has more of a social history than fiscal. I do know that the meaning of liberal has been bastardized beyond any semblance of it’s classic definition. But I do agree with your disagreement of our current definitions. [/quote]

As the word progressive from progress. I think both the left and the right have their fair share of nut jobbery :slight_smile: I thin progressive ,liberal and conservative are all good terms . I think most radical notions left or right are the enemy

50

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree with you about Conservative and Libertarians but I think you are missing it on Liberal. Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery . Libertarian is a derivative of the word Liberal[/quote]

In point of fact, I didn’t the word ‘liberal’. I try to never use it to describe radical left-wing progressivism.

Actually, Libertarian and Liberalism are derived from the same word. Some say it is French. Some say it is Greek, and some say it is Latin - but all tend to agree that the root word is “liber”, or free.

[quote]I also do not agree with the current definition of Conservative . IMO it came about from a strictly fiscal sense . So the terms Liberal Conservative would be tight with the money and Liberal with social liberties
[/quote]

I would think that the modern political definition of conservative has more of a social history than fiscal. I do know that the meaning of liberal has been bastardized beyond any semblance of it’s classic definition. But I do agree with your disagreement of our current definitions. [/quote]

So has the word conservative , IMO (Social) aspects belong under Liberal or not . Money belongs under conservative or not

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
As the word progressive from progress. I think both the left and the right have their fair share of nut jobbery :slight_smile: I thin progressive ,liberal and conservative are all good terms . I think most radical notions left or right are the enemy
[/quote]

I would submit that the two “radical notions left or right” you mention are not that far apart. Both require the same need for an over reaching federal government. Obviously, their desired utilities from the government are diametrically opposed.

The left wants to punish the successful by confiscating wealth and give it to the poor, level the playing field, end poverty…

The right wants to declare war on drugs, declare war on terror, declare war on crime, tell you what you can and can’t watch on TV…

How different are they, really?

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery .
[/quote]

I wonder why?

53

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery .
[/quote]

I wonder why?[/quote]

I grant you these are nut jobs I think you are inferring they are from a liberal faction - YouTube

so are these people nut bags , no one is claiming they are part of the so called conservative side , unless you want them :slight_smile:

54

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery .
[/quote]

I wonder why?[/quote]

I grant you these are nut jobs I think you are inferring they are from a liberal faction - YouTube

so are these people nut bags , no one is claiming they are part of the so called conservative side , unless you want them :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Westboro are left-wing Democrats who supported Al Gore.

55

I don’t say this often, but fuck yeah Sean Hannity.

56

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Well, bypassing all that theoretical, carnal situational bullshit you just spewed, of which there are one or two valid points, if Alex dies he goes to heaven anyway…I hear he’s Christian.
Everybody dies. [/quote]

Theoretical, carnal situational bullshit? What do you think arming yourself in preparation for some sort of massive govt takeover is?[/quote]

Jones may be on one far side of the argument, just like Obama, Cuomo, Piers are on the other extreme.

Most gun owners are far more in the middle…but when they hear some foreigner like Morgan spouting about “anybody who wants to own a gun is a damn fool”…it tends to get their dander up a bit, you know?[/quote]

Hey, I can respect that.

But my original point still stands. I see a LOT of people hold firm to their beliefs about gun ownership based on the assumption that at some point they will need to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical govt, like Jones said. Whether or not he specifically has genuine feelings in this manner is immaterial, because there are a lot of people who DO genuinely feel this will happen or that it is at least a possibility and they want to be ready for it.

So I wonder if those same people realize that, in all likelihood, all the AR-15s and AK-47s that they can fit into their house won’t do shit against the weaponry at the disposal of the govt. Are they prepared for what comes next? And if the right to arm yourself for protection in the eventuality of a govt takeover is so important, why do you rarely ever hear people argue that they should have the right to an Abrams tank? Or some RPGs? Or their own private fighter jet? After all, when you get right down to it, aren’t those just “arms” as well? What about some big cannons like an M-198 Howitzer? Isn’t that simply a form of “arms” when you get down to it as well?

Why don’t we ever see people from the NRA and so forth lobbying for the right to own those sorts of weapons? THOSE are the weapons we would need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical govt takeover. Why is it that we rarely ever see the same sort of people who demand unlimited gun ownership rights also get out and preach about the importance of being well-versed in guerrilla warfare tactics? Why don’t more of these gun rights groups promote classes that teach how to appropriate cash, food, ammo and so forth in a time of martial law or outright civil war?
[/quote]
Its not about taking AKs against tanks, as has been stated by others

The better method is coming together as a society with groups like Oathkeepers and such before shit hits the fan - possibly preventing

But being stripped of firearms crosses a certain line. Yea sure, guns vs. 5000 lb bombs isn’t gonna work to well.

But that’s a big jump from relative peace to all out war. It’s not so much about the military warring against the population, it’s more about the increased/increasing militarization of the police in combination with more and more tyrannical laws

Freedom is a perspective

A perspective which is completely at odds with being disarmed

A lot of you pro gun people here have wound up railing about ME, MY FAMILY, MY GUNS, etc.

I’m all for that - but there is another angle that others prefer which is focused more on “us” and “the greater good”, etc.

These people are usually more for gun control, but I don’t see the benefit to “us” nor “the greater good” by being stripped of guns. This is literally an argument against everything the Founders stood for. This is literally an argument against freedom and personal responsibility. This is literally an argument for the false notion of trading in freedom for supposed security, where you will ultimately wind up with neither.

This is an argument that Americans cannot be trusted / burdened with the responsibility / right of self defense. Pay attention here, it’s not about bombs and tanks vs. guerrilla forces - more than the lives of a few nutcases are at stake. If the people are completely dependent upon the government to provide such a degree of security it will be a slave nation - it will literally require a prison to keep you safe - and that won’t even work

[quote]Why don’t we ever see people from the NRA and so forth lobbying for the right to own those sorts of weapons? THOSE are the weapons we would need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical govt takeover. [/quote]I agree that few seem to think things through as compared to how loudly they yell

But that’s mostly fine with me, if they were silent we’d be fuck’d

My angle here was largely learned from Jones, for whatever that’s worth

57

Or to say it differently, losing the guns will cause a void that will eventually be filled by a tyranny

59

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Or to say it differently, losing the guns will cause a void that will eventually be filled by a tyranny[/quote]

Wow.

Eloquent.[/quote]

x3

60

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Pierce Morgan/CNN perfectly used Alex Jones like the tool he is. The rant wasn’t a debate over current new gun-control legislation. This a textbook lesson in how the progressive left-wing sets a narrative. You will never see true conservatism, or libertarianism allowed to be presented in an intelligent and rational manner.

With a populace as ignorant as ours, why debate the truth with facts, when the perfect strawman is only one interview away? [/quote]

I agree with you about Conservative and Libertarians but I think you are missing it on Liberal. Liberals have been painted as tree hugging and nut jobbery . Libertarian is a derivative of the word Liberal

I also do not agree with the current definition of Conservative . IMO it came about from a strictly fiscal sense . So the terms Liberal Conservative would be tight with the money and Liberal with social liberties
[/quote]

What is the current definition of Conservative? You just said you disagree with it, but not what you disagree with.