Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan

[Guest drv2fst]

yes, he made a fool of himself.  I appreciate his perspective but his lack of self control made us look like raving mad men.

[East_TN_Patriot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OEeuMjG-94A

 

Good information, but a single report by a local news station does not a fact-based debate make.  We have decades of crime data and academic research available, but nobody is talking about it.  Even the NRA largely ignores it.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The fence sitters are the ones that are ignorant about the Constitution and have no firm beliefs about our rights and freedoms. If you've finished school and have an IQ of more than 90 and still have no firm beliefs in our Constitition, you either are a brainwashed democrat or just plain ole apathetic to the nations concerns. These are people more than likely on the government dole. Keep the people dumbed down and give them a union job for life, and the left succeed in fundamentally transforming America.
People that can think for themselves are dangerous to the leftist. Edited January 9, 2013 by ThePunisher

[ProjectDexter]

Why would someone be worried about us gaining or losing "points" politically? I don't know if there is anyone in congress with the power to make this work. It's going to end with people saying NO and the politicians backing down, or it is going to end with a lot of people dieing.

CNN responds to this segment last night, a guest mentions that Piers should show up to the boxing ring with a semi auto weapon and "pop" Alex jones. Everyone had a good chuckle and one lady even says "she would like that".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/alex-jones-piers-morgan-guest-1525702

[LngRngShtr]

THIS  is why they say never get in an argument with an idiot (P.Morgan)

 

after a certain point it gets hard for folks to tell who the idiot is   :ugh:

[GlockSpock]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/57868-lordie-alex-jonespiers-morgan-on-guns/

 

:up:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Because they have been brainwashed by the media. They may not have agreed with the media about the issue or other

issues, but the fact that the same thing dumped in your face, day after day, leaves some very important mist-truths stuck

in your head.

 

ET, I hope you eventually have some success, but I fear the same as you. On other forums, not gun related, in the political

sections, I have tried to use John Lott as an example of using long range historical data to try and separate myths from truth

to no avail. They always come up with more tripe dismissing his data by "correlation and causation" studies from people who

have never had anything to do outside their little world, much less touched or handled a firearm.

 

I looked at the Jones interview, once again last night, and yes, I wish Jones wouldn't have fallen into the trap set by Morgan,

but that was the intent of the whole interview: to discredit Jones. Like I said earlier, I have never been a fan of Jones, but I

stand by what I said that he at least stood up, probably knowing he would be ambushed. Or, maybe he believes that birther

and truther stuff that he didn't mind getting it into the mainstream. I wish he hadn't.

 

The media won't ever allow the debate to be honest. The only hope for people to understand the issue is for them to learn to

use their own BS detectors and seek the truth, if they don't already have it and are only in denial.

 

This is the same propaganda machine that Hitler used against the German people. If you thought that was a fair and polite

debate, that's where the problem is. We can do much better than just picking one man apart because he tried. Find a better

man and get  him into the forefront of the debate.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The best debater for conservative causes is Newt Gingrich and everyone dismisses him as crazy also. Everyone on the right is crazy according to the MSM and leftist loons. I'm afraid that the right will never find someone that is perfect for them. Edited January 9, 2013 by ThePunisher

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The idea is to win.

 

You don't do that by using a How  to Lose Friends and Alienate People tactic.

 

"Gun Appreciation Day" is another bonehead move, on MLK Day long weekend. You know, Martin Luther King. Who was killed. With a rifle.  And day before re-inauguration of our first black president. You'll scream PC foul, but that's nonetheless begging to draw unpleasant battle lines by association.

 

Larry Ward, the organizer, was on MSNBC today. While not frothing at the mouth like Jones, he was totally unprepared and impotent. Looked like an ignorant doofus. He couldn't get an free internship in the worst PR agency in the country. Lapierre ain't exactly charismatic either, for that matter.

 

2A advocates are killing themselves PR wise -- we don't really need an opponent. What's next, trot out toothless drooling hillbillies as symbol of gun rights? Might as well.

 

- OS

You can't win the argument if you can't get the argument out. I'm past worrying over any of the media outlets because they

are stacked decks. I don't know what TV viewership is any more and I really don't care. I haven't had the TV on in over three

weeks, but I imagine I'm the exception rather than the rule.

 

If we continue the argument that it is a perception, rather than reality, we lost the argument before we started. Actually, if the

wrong stuff is taught in schools for generations, like history lessons, we lost the choice to get to the argument when the liberals

took over the educational system. Am I sounding conspiratorial, yet? This has been going on since probably the sixties and

very few people have tried to do anything because they thought that kids would figure it out on their own. That's true to an

extent, but at a cost. We forgot how to fight back at this kind of tyranny, also.

 

Look at how Cloward and Pivens caused ripples. Look at how Saul Alinsky affected politics. Look at how the media came about.

How many more enemies do we need? Ah! a few more are out there, and I'm not worried about someone calling me some kind

of conspiracy nut. Sometimes truth blows conspiracies away. But too many have been dumbed down to realize it. The liberals

are taking it to the next level now. Find the perfect person to get the message out.

 

I agree that the idea is to win. The fight is going to be much more difficult than finding the perfect spokesman.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The fence sitters are the ones that are ignorant about the Constitution and have no firm beliefs about our rights and freedoms. If you've finished school and have an IQ of more than 90 and still have no firm beliefs in our Constitition, you either are a brainwashed democrat or just plain ole apathetic to the nations concerns. These are people more than likely on the government dole. Keep the people dumbed down and give them a union job for life, and the left succeed in fundamentally transforming America.
People that can think for themselves are dangerous to the leftist.

Although I understand your point, I would partially disagree with you. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum are ingnorant about the Constitution or selectively interpret information that fits their argument. Regardless of what you or I may believe about the Constitution or its meaning, there is no clear consensus or solid definitive interpretation of most aspects of the Bill of Rights. The problem here is that most Americans are uneducated on the Constitution, the Enlightenment era philosophy that inspired it, and the historical facts that influenced it. I teach college students who proclaim to know the document and have very strong opinions about what it means, yet can't answer basic questions about the background of the document. Also, as the world changes, we are required to go back and reapply centuries old concepts to contemporary circumstances, which were not foreseeable in 1789. That was the reason the framers made it such a vague document. They outlined bedrock principles, but left the details to future generations. It's these bedrock principles that people simply don't educate themselves about. So, the Second Amendment applies to the people? Prove it, explain how you know that, give me the details, the historical principles, etc. Most people can't do it and that is why we are constantly at risk of losing our rights.

Take Alex Jones again as an example. He went into the lion's den with no significant level of information or data to back up his point. He assumed that his rant was sufficient because that's the truth and damn it, that's sufficient in an argument. Even though Morgan was incorrect on his data, he at least tried to use some data.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The best debater for conservative causes is Newt Gingrich and everyone dismisses him as crazy also. Everyone on the right is crazy according to the MSM and leftist loons. I'm afraid that the right will ever find someone that is perfect for them.

And that's because Newt talks a good game and then doesn't know when to shut up. He ends up shooting from the hip with some wacky idea that completely contradicts his stance on an issue and/or is based on emotion. Perhaps the worst part of the Alex Jones rant was when he didn't know when to shut up and went into his NWO crap. Up to that point, his rant could be attributed to a man passionate about his gun rights. Beyond that, he became a conspiratorial loon who is creating an argument based on NWO silliness, thus destroying the credibility of his entire argument. It also doesn't help matters that he managed to get himself into a confrontation with the TSA while getting on the plane to do the interview.

Heck, just look at some of the responses in this thread. A good spokesperson would be rejected because they weren't inflammatory enough because "this isn't a time for playing nice." Edited January 9, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[mcurrier]

Here is Conan's version - LOL!

 

http://teamcoco.com/video/alex-jones-piers-morgan-guns

[mcurrier]

Here is Conan's version - LOL!

 

http://teamcoco.com/video/alex-jones-piers-morgan-guns

[Guest Cold Dead Hands]

jones shoved the facts right back in his face. I don't care if he screamed and dominated Morgan. Good. Morgan is irrelevant. Mr Jones's Audience dwarfs every personality on CNN put together. He used Morgan's own tactic that he used with Larry Pratt for instance, back on him. He's yelling because he's pissed off. 

[Glenn]

A spokesperson, no matter how good, is unlikely to make much of an impact. If he or she is really good, they won't be allowed on any mainstream media.

[East_TN_Patriot]

ET, I hope you eventually have some success, but I fear the same as you. On other forums, not gun related, in the political

sections, I have tried to use John Lott as an example of using long range historical data to try and separate myths from truth

to no avail. They always come up with more tripe dismissing his data by "correlation and causation" studies from people who

have never had anything to do outside their little world, much less touched or handled a firearm.

 

Thanks.  I am actually in the planning stages of a paper for publication with a colleague of mine and UT Knoxville and another who teaches at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC.  I am also in the very early planning stages of trying to replicate the infamous ABC News "experiment" that so many of us are familiar with, except this time, I would try to make it more realistic by using nothing but average people as shooters instead of a trained police SWAT team member and firearms instructor who know which participant has the gun.  I've also started writing an op-ed, but I'm not sure where I will submit it.  I hope to expand on that op-ed and get it published in a mainstream magazine publication somewhere.

[Oh Shoot]

Mods can we merge this thread with:

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/57868-lordie-alex-jonespiers-morgan-on-guns/

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Keyless said:

 

  I have listened to Alex many times . He is best in small doses . He does get excited , and from what I have heard think he is right most of the time. I am not saying he done a good job of representing us. I think he has so much info and is trying to get it out in the little time he has.

 

 As for the  Piers interviews ,Jesse did the best with Ted in at second. To me I think I would like to see Chuck Woolery on his show. Chuck does a very good video on You Tube .

 

   But keep in mind that Alex has a ton of listeners . We need everyone to stand together including him and his listeners. Everyone appeals to a different crowd.

 

 I am a semi tin hat person myself. I don't believe the Government ever tells us the whole truth . I can't buy the majic bullet of 1963 or anything that has happened since .  As for 9-11 , it is hard for me to believe that one of the hijackers passport survived and landed on the ground at ground zero . Another highjackers , plastic I D card was at the Pentigon and also survived the crash . Building 7 just falls in its tracks from a fire .  But that is what we are told  .

 

The story changes to much from start to finish. I am NOT saying the Government did it , I am saying that the evidence never adds up to me. Maybe they think we can't handle the truth. But by the Government trying to tell us this kind of bull and expecting us to believe it is what starts all the conspirac theories to start with .

 

 It could have been better but I always heard bad publicity was better than no publicity .

 

Thanks Keyless those are interesting thoughts. A few follow-on ideas--

 

I most agree with the philosophy of classical greek skepticism but it is humanly impossible to be entirely self-consistent in any philosophy. Classical skepticism is entirely different from the modern understanding of the term, or what is taken nowadays as "scientific skepticism". The modern interpretation of skepticism-- An entirely self-consistent "scientific skeptic" might negate, or disbelieve everything. But in practice modern skeptics practice selective negation where dis-favored concepts are held to impossibly strict rules of evidence, but favored concepts are treated more kindly and the "proof" of favored concepts might not be examined nearly as rigorously as dis-favored concepts.

 

On the other hand, classical skepticism merely questions that one can know anything to "full certainty" whatever that might mean. It is not like the modern practice of applying negativism to concepts. Rather, it is the practice of withholding both affirmation and denial to all things. One can consider the evidence, but withhold final judgment because evidence is never complete or incontrovertible. It isn't that one doubts everything-- Merely that one withholds uncritical belief in any and all things.

 

A modern skeptic might be more likely to say "X is wrong" or "X is unproven" wheras a classical skeptic would merely refuse to agree that any X is definitely "true". A classical skeptic cheerfully admits, "I don't know."

 

From a sociological standpoint, after the JFK assassination most usa citizens believed the Warren Commission Report, but as time goes on, increasing percentages of citizenry began to doubt the Warren Commission Report. There were at least two subsequent congressional "re-openings" of the affair, which drew different conclusions but couldn't provide "slam dunk" evidence that it happened any particular way. But over the years more and more citizens disbelieved the official gov story, until today a majority of people disbelieve the government account. They don't all believe in the same alternative account, of which there are thousands, but most people DO NOT believe the government account.

 

After Waco the majority of citizens believed the government account. Only "nutcases" believed that the government was even slightly to blame for all those men, women and children immolated. But as time went on, the same phenomena happened. Nowadays I'm guessing that the majority opinion is that the government screwed the pooch on that one, either thru malice or incredibly gross and compounded incompetence.

 

I'm not making any judgment on the "accuracy" of government accounts of the JFK assassination or the Waco affair. There is no way in hell that I could ever get good enough evidence on those matters to know whether the accounts are "basically factual" rather than the most outlandish lies. I dunno and there is no way to ever find out. So maybe it is factual and maybe not is about as close as I can get.

 

Even if the government explanations happen to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth-- Over time the majority public opinion dis-believes the government version. Perhaps this drift is akin to a "sociological constant" in our current culture?

 

I am more often wrong than right, but I expect the majority of the public to eventually dis-believe the government account of 9/11. As with the JFK affair, there will be no single alternate explanation for 9/11 that the majority will BELIEVE, but the majority will eventually DIS-BELIEVE the official government explanation. Therefore, regardless whether the government explanation of 9/11 is true or false, complete or incomplete, eventually the majority of citizens will basically agree with "nutcase" Alex Jones that something stinks to high heaven on the government explanation. As with JFK and Waco, I personally have no idea as to the veracity of the 9/11 official story, and there is no way I'll ever get good enough evidence to draw firm conclusion. So maybe it is true and maybe not. But "nutcase" Alex Jones is among the first harbingers of what will eventually be the majority opinion. And when that happens, people might tend to lend more credence to some of Alex's other "paranoic delusions" regardless whether or not they really are paranoid delusions. I'm most inclined to consider most of his theories at least somewhat delusional, but I don't have good enough evidence to refute them either.

 

Another interesting psycho-social phenomenon over the last decade is the amount of authoritarian scorn brought to bear upon 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or even mild-mannered skeptics of the government account. If a person verbalizes the least bit of doubt about the government account, not only is such a person an unpatriotic traitor, he is also a fool and a nutcase. Because "public champion" talking heads of the government account do not have access to any better evidence than I, as best I can tell, there seems to be a bit of hysterical religious fervor in condemnation of 9/11 skeptics. Intolerant group-think on steroids.

 

Consider the case of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones. Van Jones is a proud communist convicted felon ex-jailbird agitator and crap-starter, but none of that was embarrassing enough to get him fired from the white house. I personally think some of the previous description would qualify him as "fringe" or "nutcase", but not nearly nutcase enough to get him fired from the Obama administration.

 

But after it was discovered that Van Jones had once signed a 9/11 petition, Van Jones was gone within days. Being a commie jailbird agitator wasn't near as bad as being a 9/11 skeptic! Talk about crazy stuff! Make no mistake I'm glad they finally ran Van Jones off, but a 9/11 petition sure was a weird straw which broke that camels back!  :)

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2013 by Lester Weevils