Alex Jones and Piers Morgan

Off Topic Politics, World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]

Hate to point this out, but that’s not even close to the proper understanding of conservative. Neither is your understanding of Liberal. Liberal stems from someone who believes in liberalism, most people today are students of liberalism.

The understanding of liberalism is that the end of society and individuals, by themselves, is to make money. The ability to make money is the key to happiness.

That’s why the Old Liberals pulled the gags from all the heretics, in an attempt that philosophy and religious discovery would be made…cosmic truth being so important that all should give independent testimony. It might lead to happiness. Whether you agree with their action, that’s on you. I believe it was a noble act, though ultimately wrong.

62

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Boom.

63

Piers played that well and Jones is a dumbass for getting all worked up like that. Jones looks unhinged and is going off on tangents like his prozac rant. Jones also didn’t do his homework. If he had read some of my previous posts he would have known the correct answer to comparisons between British and America murder rates.

The correct answer is they can not be accurately compared because the British methodology for generating murder statistics is totally different from the American methodology. The British government uses a very different method of counting murders specifically for the purpose of manipulating their statistics downwards as low as is possible.

In Britain a homicide is not counted as a homicide until after a culprit has been arrested, tried and convicted of murder for that homicide. So in Britain if a gang member’s body is found riddled with bullets in an obvious gang related murder it is not counted as a murder until someone is convicted of the murder.

Under the US methodology that same body would automatically be counted as a murder. Also under the US rules any dead body whose death can’t be readily explained otherwise is automatically counted as a homicide. That is why sometimes suicides are counted as homicides.

Jones is correct about the arson and assault being commonplace in the UK. Those are crimes which the British don’t prosecute vigorously like the Americans do. So it’s not absurd to point them out at all.

What Jones really needed to throw is Morgan’s face is the statistics for that most quintessentially British form of assault, “glassing”. In Britain they average over 50,000 “glassings” a year. Here is a little visual aid so you can understand what glassing does.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=glassing+victims&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.b2U&biw=1024&bih=625&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Xk7wUMOwAYKK2wW4wYDoBw

64

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

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

Anything to do with the social aspect of life , with the exception of if it is a fiscal issue

65

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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. [/quote]

And you do? Try this:

He may very well have had involvement in the phone hacking incident… Hard to believe he as editor had no knowledge about it… But this was not the reason he was fired.

EDIT: probably also worthwhile mentioning that the newspaper Morgan was fired from was the Daily Mirror and not Murdochs News Of The World which did the phone hacking and which was eventually closed down

66

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Piers played that well and Jones is a dumbass for getting all worked up like that. Jones looks unhinged and is going off on tangents like his prozac rant. Jones also didn’t do his homework. If he had read some of my previous posts he would have known the correct answer to comparisons between British and America murder rates.

The correct answer is they can not be accurately compared because the British methodology for generating murder statistics is totally different from the American methodology. The British government uses a very different method of counting murders specifically for the purpose of manipulating their statistics downwards as low as is possible.

In Britain a homicide is not counted as a homicide until after a culprit has been arrested, tried and convicted of murder for that homicide. So in Britain if a gang member’s body is found riddled with bullets in an obvious gang related murder it is not counted as a murder until someone is convicted of the murder.

Under the US methodology that same body would automatically be counted as a murder. Also under the US rules any dead body whose death can’t be readily explained otherwise is automatically counted as a homicide. That is why sometimes suicides are counted as homicides.
[/quote]

Wow. I had no bloody clue! That is, well, scary. I don’t doubt you, but do you have a source I can use or link in other discussions I plan on bringing this up in?

67

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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. [/quote]

And you do? Try this:

He may very well have had involvement in the phone hacking incident… Hard to believe he as editor had no knowledge about it… But this was not the reason he was fired.

EDIT: probably also worthwhile mentioning that the newspaper Morgan was fired from was the Daily Mirror and not Murdochs News Of The World which did the phone hacking and which was eventually closed down[/quote]

He was Editor of both.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Hate to point this out, but that’s not even close to the proper understanding of conservative. Neither is your understanding of Liberal. Liberal stems from someone who believes in liberalism, most people today are students of liberalism.

[/quote]
I would say Conservative stems from the word Conserve ( protect from harm or loss)

Liberal would be Liberty is a state of being free

when you say proper , could you mean conventional

69

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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. [/quote]

And you do? Try this:

He may very well have had involvement in the phone hacking incident… Hard to believe he as editor had no knowledge about it… But this was not the reason he was fired.

EDIT: probably also worthwhile mentioning that the newspaper Morgan was fired from was the Daily Mirror and not Murdochs News Of The World which did the phone hacking and which was eventually closed down[/quote]

He was Editor of both.[/quote]

Yes but only got fired from the of them and it wasn’t because of the phone hacking.

70

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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. [/quote]

And you do? Try this:

He may very well have had involvement in the phone hacking incident… Hard to believe he as editor had no knowledge about it… But this was not the reason he was fired.

EDIT: probably also worthwhile mentioning that the newspaper Morgan was fired from was the Daily Mirror and not Murdochs News Of The World which did the phone hacking and which was eventually closed down[/quote]

He was Editor of both.[/quote]

Yes but only got fired from the of them and it wasn’t because of the phone hacking.
[/quote]

The Judge in the case Lord Levenson said… “the texts clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in his tabloid as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it”

Murdoch fired him after…you really think it was not the reason…really?

71

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]winkel wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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. [/quote]

And you do? Try this:

He may very well have had involvement in the phone hacking incident… Hard to believe he as editor had no knowledge about it… But this was not the reason he was fired.

EDIT: probably also worthwhile mentioning that the newspaper Morgan was fired from was the Daily Mirror and not Murdochs News Of The World which did the phone hacking and which was eventually closed down[/quote]

He was Editor of both.[/quote]

Yes but only got fired from the of them and it wasn’t because of the phone hacking.
[/quote]

The Judge in the case Lord Levenson said… “the texts clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in his tabloid as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it”

Murdoch fired him after…you really think it was not the reason…really?[/quote]

The news paper he was fired from was not a Murdoch publication. Did you even read the link I posted?

72

[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]

This is brilliant.

You should add this one wisdom, simple truth liner on the gun control thread!

73

[quote]Alpha F 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]

This is brilliant.

You should add this one wisdom, simple truth liner on the gun control thread!
[/quote]

Why?

Its not true.

The readiness to be disarmed will cause a void that will eventually be filled by a tyranny.

Guns in and of itself are nothing.

Clausewitz and whatnot.

74

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alpha F 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]

This is brilliant.

You should add this one wisdom, simple truth liner on the gun control thread!
[/quote]

Why?

Its not true.

The readiness to be disarmed will cause a void that will eventually be filled by a tyranny.

Guns in and of itself are nothing.

Clausewitz and whatnot.

[/quote]

I agree.

I understood that what you wrote above was his meaning.

To me, at least, this has never had anything to do with the object but the substance of which the subjects that handle it are made off.

An inept populace that has already completely surrendered their individual sovereignty to the state will offer no resistance in “losing their guns.”

However, the expression you used: “readiness to disarm” is much better as it expresses the core of the truth.

75

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
Thanks guys

76

[quote]Alpha F 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]

This is brilliant.

You should add this one wisdom, simple truth liner on the gun control thread!
[/quote]
Thanks, but orion is right tho.

This one liner is worthless without the rambling which came before it

Actually the main reason I put it was because I understood some people don’t like a post with as much rhetoric as my earlier one. So this pretty much restates it all in one cold hard logical line

My intention was that those people could accept the message of the earlier one without technically accepting the rhetoric itself

77

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Piers played that well and Jones is a dumbass for getting all worked up like that. Jones looks unhinged and is going off on tangents like his prozac rant. Jones also didn’t do his homework. If he had read some of my previous posts he would have known the correct answer to comparisons between British and America murder rates.

The correct answer is they can not be accurately compared because the British methodology for generating murder statistics is totally different from the American methodology. The British government uses a very different method of counting murders specifically for the purpose of manipulating their statistics downwards as low as is possible.

In Britain a homicide is not counted as a homicide until after a culprit has been arrested, tried and convicted of murder for that homicide. So in Britain if a gang member’s body is found riddled with bullets in an obvious gang related murder it is not counted as a murder until someone is convicted of the murder.

Under the US methodology that same body would automatically be counted as a murder. Also under the US rules any dead body whose death can’t be readily explained otherwise is automatically counted as a homicide. That is why sometimes suicides are counted as homicides.
[/quote]

Wow. I had no bloody clue! That is, well, scary. I don’t doubt you, but do you have a source I can use or link in other discussions I plan on bringing this up in?[/quote]

There was a number of news articles about this near the end of 2008, but I can’t remember exactly where I read about it and the computer I was using then had a catastrophic hard disk crash so I lost my saved links. I’ll have to do some digging to see if I can find it.

In Britain the majority parliamentary party is the government in power and they are responsible for counting crime statistics. So their statistics are very prone to politicization because it reflects on their job performance. In the US with three different branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) there is greater independence. ie The uniform crime report which is considered the most authoritative report on us crime is produced by the FBI which is in the department of justice.

Here is an article that shows the UK government has been pressuring police departments to downplay violent crime statistics.

But Dr Marian FitzGerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent, said the Government had “endlessly interfered” with the way police record crime and now “chickens are coming home to roost”.

This article mentions the change in accounting methods but doesn’t say what they were.

The fall in homicides is quite remarkable - and does not appear to be a statistical fluke.

It reflects an overall decline in levels of violence recorded by police - 762,000 incidents, the fewest number since counting methods changed a decade ago.

Here is a wikipedia entry that generally refers to this issue.

Counting rules

Counting rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Relatively few standards exist and none that permit international comparability beyond a very limited range of offences. However, many jurisdictions accept the following:

There must be a prima facie case that an offence has been committed before it is recorded. That is either police find evidence of an offence or receive a believable allegation of an offense being committed. Some jurisdictions count offending only when certain processes happen, such as an arrest is made, ticket issued, charges laid in Court or only upon securing a conviction.
78

Freakonomics claims America’s decline in crime is a direct result of Roe VS Wade . Less latch key kids means in 18 years less adult crime

79

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Freakonomics claims America’s decline in crime is a direct result of Roe VS Wade . Less latch key kids means in 18 years less adult crime [/quote]

I hear tell of hoards of white Christian families who will gladly adopt kids of all colors

Even if what you said is true, abortion is not the best way. Adoption is better - and it’s an option that is not presented enough, imo

80

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Freakonomics claims America’s decline in crime is a direct result of Roe VS Wade . Less latch key kids means in 18 years less adult crime [/quote]

I hear tell of hoards of white Christian families who will gladly adopt kids of all colors

Even if what you said is true, abortion is not the best way. Adoption is better - and it’s an option that is not presented enough, imo[/quote]

There is a conundrum surrounding adoption . I have known a few bad parents in my time . They do not see the results of bad parenting . They see it is as keeping the kid as best option and it may be especially if the child is more than a few years old . Because the child will bounce around foster care for the rest of his adolescent life .

I have a few friends that grew up in the foster care system and they can tell some horror stories .