http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA
What do you guys think?
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA
What do you guys think?
"Because there's criminals, I dont lose my rights". Yep.
Jesus I cant stand Piers Morgan but Alex Jones doesn't let people speak. Plus he is talking shit regarding UK crime
Wasn't a good showing for Alex IMO. Acting too aggressive. :-)
So uncivilised...
Agreed. I hate the way he is trying to make out there is some USA vs UK element here. There isn't. Piers is 1 guy with an opinion, which he is entitled too. It's like Alex is saying 'I can have my platform, but because your opinion is different and you are English, you don't deserve 1'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Carr
Also for someone that never believes a word his government says he sure likes to throw out government statistics a lot - when they suit him.
Guess what I am saying here is, whether I agree or disagree with Piers or Alex, it is irrelevant when Alex goes off like that. He didn't get his point across at all, and he made himself look terribly uncivilized at the same time.
I just hope he hasn't damaged his organisations reputation with all of this. :-)
A Man Possessed...
Exactly. The entire "debate" was a farce. I was cringing the moment he started doing an english accent, total child like behaviour. God forbid i ever ask a question about guns the next time i am in america, i might get challenged to a boxing match or get accused of being a redcoat...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Sales
I don't like Piers Morgan but Alex Jones makes himself look like an idiot here. Even if he had some good points.... they way he put himself across detracts from the content! Talking about boxing rings and mimicking an English accent on live TV when he had a chance to put some good points across...wasted opportunity and now more people will think he is kook!
Agreed. That was painful and he made himself look like someone who didn't know anything (which he obviously isn't) by shouting about nothing. Weird.Quote:
I don't like Piers Morgan but Alex Jones makes himself look like an idiot here. Even if he had some good points.... they way he put himself across detracts from the content!
Cocaine rage?
Alex Jones is the man. Its funny the only people hating on him here are the europeans. lol
Not hating on him mate..why would me being European have anything to do with it??? Don't get that! Anyway...read my first quote..I don't like Piers Morgan...nothing to do with where either guy comes from ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Perez
Hi, tbh I think that is maybe a little to do with the time of day this thread was posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Perez
Nobody here was even really saying what Alex was saying was all bullshit, just his delivery was awful and as somebody else said, a wasted opportunity. :-)
Alex Jones went crazy on that HAHAHA.
Nationality is irrelevant. Nobody was hating. Dont know where that came from...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Perez
However, ask yourself this. I doubt many europeans have heard of alex jones. What do you think the majority, who havent heard of him or seen him before, would think when they watch this video?
Not as funny now is it?
He's Been On The Straight Kia-Ora...
and what was the point on this debat ? jesus can't de dude bring up the decency to let someone speak ! This was no debate alex knows alot but he has to calm down to make a point !
CNN is for profit Piers god knows is for profit and Alex gotta paying gig to be a nut that he has played before. Ya'll were/are watching the wwe for people who find violence crude. Ya'll ever see gwar on the jerry springer show same thing just CNN put a very thin veil on it. Alex jones is trending on twitter cuz of this just like john cena trends after every monday night raw.
I watched again....he just went full retard....we know the rules there!
why would you ever watch this kind of stuff?
Hating just means that negative things are said about someone. Not like Love or Hate. Its a slang term
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Carr
Actually that's embarrassingly close to truth, especaly in the South, Americas shame. (disclaimer: my mother and other relatives live in Mississippi)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Carr
Watch again, check the sponsor of the show, some big bank. Piers is part of the NWO. Alex knows that anything that comes out of Piers mouth is to satisfy his sponsors. Alex ALWAYS gets cut off when he does spots on mainstream media. He decided to flip the script this time go off and I'm glad he did. This video is MAD viral because of it.
The bottom line is that the NWO needs the US disarmed, they are doing everything possible to put it into action.
Fuck that fake Piers. Alex is going off for the people's right to protect themselves, it was AWESOME to see him DOMINATE on a CNN show. If you think Alex doesn't know what he's talking about because he is hyper passionate about the constitution then you are not paying close enough attention to the facts.
I still love yalls that are on Piers side, I still love yalls that think Alex is nuts, just TRY to understand he is devoting his life to fighting tyranny, how in the hell can anyone be against that? :)
Im not a fan of Piers Morgan because he is so one sided when it comes to these issues and I cant say I like the conversation from Alex Jones even though I agree with his thoughts. Here is a better debate between Piers and Larry Pratt. If you watch here you will see the other side of Piers and how degrading he was to his guest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8hWDeq7Cnc
I'm not taking sides Eddie, i couldnt give a shit about piers morgan... i understand what you are saying... i believe that alex knows a lot, and i dont dispute that, and i believe his motives are good. However, it doesn't change the fact that the way he went about getting his point across made him look like a first class cunt to anyone outside the states who has never heard of him before.
I think everyone knows Piers Morgan is a knob cheese...I just think Alex wasted the opportunity to prove it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
first off, I dont know if there is a NWO or not. I think it would be hard to argue that the wealthy elite does not collaborate in order to maintain or build wealth and power. Whether or not this is done at the scale or with the intentions that proponents of the NWO "conspiracy theory" propose is debatable (which implies possible) I dont think believing in the NWO is crazy but it attracts crazy people which makes the group look bad.
Maybe the show being sponsored by a big bank is a factor, but aren't the networks part of this NWO anyway? If so it doesnt matter who the sponsor is, right?
Maybe peirs is also part of the NWO. Ok then we need civil people to debate him and expose him.
The style jones used is not likely to convince people that he has valid points. Only those who already share jones views are going to sympathize with him, if he uses this style of argument. Dominating the opposition makes you seem passionate at best but in most people eyes it will not further your argument. Presenting verifiable facts and supporting your position with sound reasoning and a solid use of logic is what ultimately will sway those who are still on the fence.
You (eddie) seem to view this as a highly polarized issue with two distinct sides. Simply because many people dont agree with jones behavior on this show doesnt make them "against" jones. I doesnt even mean that people think he is wrong, just that he is not representing those who share his views in the best or most productive manner.
There may be an oversimplification on this issue. Oppressive governments do often seek to disarm the populous, we have seem this many times in history. Typically at the time of disarmament the pop knew what was going on but it was far too late.
On the other hand real first world nations with representative government also seek to reduce or eliminate weapons specially designed for killing large numbers of people. The goal is limit the potential damage in the event that someone decides to harm others. This strategy appears to be very effective, just looking at the statistics.
Now we have two plausible motivations for a government to reduce or eliminate civilian weapons.
Now assuming that the NWO exist and that one of their goals is to remove weapons from the civilian population, what is the purpose of this goal? In other words, in what circumstances would it be advantageous for the population to be disarmed?
Historically this would be of value in preventing resistance movements or insurgency. Ok that being the case, this would imply that the NWO plans to change the dynamic which they have supposedly carefully created for many decades or centuries. The dynamic I speak of being that the population is made complacent via numerous methods and mindlessly toils away generating wealth and power for the elite. Only in the face of extreme civil unrest do armed resistance movements materialize, therefore it is a logical extension that the NWO plans to make living conditions much worse and will need the pop disarmed to prevent armed resistance.
That brings an obvious question to bear, why would the NWO want to change the current dynamic? I dont know much about the NWO but it seems to me they would want to keep the pop happy and complacent.
alex jones just looks retarded, this is why you should never argue with fools.
& alex should loose 2 of his 3 chins before acting like a tuff guy i'm sure his cardio is shit. he just looks like a ignorant redneck. this is worse than listening to a chick argue with herself.
I cannot stand Morgan like the rest of us but I have to agree that tougher gun control would be a good thing. I'm just sick of hearing about people getting chopped to bits by guns with crazy fucks pulling the trigger. "How many chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin" What? People are dying here Alex. I'm sure if his family had been exterminated whilst watching a film he would have a slightly different view on the whole thing.
I liked what Alex Jones was saying, or should I say yelling. However, to an outsider (somebody who doesnt know who either of these people are) he just ended up looking like a well informed redneck who lost his shit and made himself and his own argument lose merit.
Never try and argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
yep, even if Alex had something intelligent to say, which is rare in my opinion, he always fucks it up with his crazy BS attitude. i know i'm in the minority here as even Joe, Eddie and the great Bill Hicks love the guy.
Just doing some research on Alex Jones and things he has had to say about Australian issues in the past and to say he exaggerates and doesnt always understand the topical content, would be a massive understatement.
35 vs 11,000 little '' factoids '' sorry but in the logical world facts actually meen something. we had 45 murders here with guns last year. thats a small city vs the whole uk. you would think a '' grown ass man '' would understand that. 1+1 =2 but in alex jones & mr. rogers world of make believe that shit equals whatever the hell you want it to be. alex jones, rush limbaugh, & anthony cumia are easily the 3 biggest retards in radio. 3 crazies 2 racist = 5 reasons to switch stations
I really think jones has good intentions and some of the ideas he was promoting years ago seemed at least plausible. He really comes off bad in this. I haven't listened to him in about 4 years but hes usually more articulate than this.
turn down your volume before you click the link,
http://www.yooouuutuuube.com/v/?widt...direction=rand
Hey your the guy with the super pimp hemp gear! I just looked at your site and saw those hemp fight shorts. You should make a post when you get more in and give us all a discount.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Odell (Datsusara)
Most of the murders are gang related. Lets get rid of all the gang members not the guns. Gang members will start killing eachother with rocks after the guns are taken. Then what? Get rid of all the rocks? people are so dumb
i agree with what you are saying but "LOL" at already criminal gang members turning in their guns if they became illegalQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric Perez
The majority but not an overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are related to gangs. This number has gotten worse as the number of guns on the streets have risen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Perez
Killing each other with rocks? I think every sane person would rather be attacked with a rock. Hard to kill an innocent bystander with a rock, how about robbing a store with a rock? If rocks and guns had the same potential for killing then no one would care about gun control because they wouldn't be very dangerous.
Almost anything can be a weapon. true. You can kill with your bare hands, true.
Equating two things like a semi-auto handgun and a rock, based on their common but drastically unenlivenment potential to kill is a type of logical fallacy, I believe its called association fallacy though this is usually used in reference to people not items. The argument you illustrate is indeed a ridiculous argument with flawed logic, however it is fundamentally different from the argument made by proponents of gun control. A very simple minded person might read you rock example and think, "heck, hes right a rock can kill someone why make automatic weapon illegal" of course that person would be a complete idiot.
You see, the crux of the argument hinges not on the simple potential for an item to be used as a weapon but on the drastic difference in killing potential in term of speed, efficiency of effort and time and total killing capacity.
To make your argument reasonable you could think of a hypothetical situation were a single rock could kill many people with the same speed and efficiency as a handgun. For example a large boulder is suspended over a group of people and all you have to do to drop the boulder and kill them is pull and little trigger. Now this is not a good case for making boulders illegal but it is a good case for making traps capable of killing many people illegal and in fact they are. You still have ignore the time and effort in setting up the trap to make this at all a close comparison.
Basically, people are not concerned about certain types of guns simply because they have a potential to kill but because they have tremendous potential to kill with great ease.
Removing something from society once it is made illegal does take some time. Fortunately only a reduction in guns is necessary to begin saving lives. No one expects all guns off the street over night nor would that be required for many lives to be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenbalmer
"If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Seems like some good ol' simple folksy thinking at first read, maybe it is in fact. The intelligent person however immediately thinks of the implications of extending this "logic". In the case of any law, only outlaws will break that law. No shit, in the act of breaking the law you become an outlaw. Extending this flawed logic to any law would make to law seem pointless.