zoony Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 His mock British accent was the icing on the cake. The guy may be legitimately insane but it was very entertaining. Yah, that was hilarious ---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 08:12 AM ---------- Wow. I knew he was nuts but that's so over the top that its mesmerizing. He honestly reminds me of Sam Kinison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Some of us evaluate domination in a debate or discussion by who has the stronger argument on the merits, Alex Jones screaming about reliving his disgusting dream of an armed revolution to protect guns doesn't come close. In that respect all Piers had to do was not say anything and he's have dominated the fool Jones. You're talking about cable news here. Cable news is all about shouting and screaming down minor peons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 You're talking about cable news here. Cable news is all about shouting and screaming down minor peons. Point taken...I stand corrected. This also explains a great deal of why I don't watch cable "news". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 There is a direct correlation between the concerns of people unwilling to be disarmed by their government and the actions of previous tyrants. Your "Godwins Law" is not applicable here, because the argument starts out with a correlation. It doesn't end up there. You may call it absurd. Many people believe it's not. Not because they're idiots, but they believe they see correlations and consistencies with events in history. They have quotes and beliefs from our founding fathers to assist their beliefs. You have a "law" created over the internet. Who is right? I'm not smart enough to know. But I know what I believe. I know what I believe is not "absurd" nor a "fallacy". I also know that I can have a conversation with somebody with a dissenting opinion without throwing words out to make myself seem smarter and to belittle them. The thing is, basically no one is talking about disarming the people. We are talking about reasonable regulations to protect people. The way some pro-gun people talk, its like I have a responsibility or a duty to own a gun, not just a right. That its my fault for not having a gun, or wanting one. Again, no one is saying that you can't have a gun. People are saying, you don't need a gun that can shoot 100 bullets in five seconds. Or armor piercing bullets. Is saying people shouldn't have nuclear weapons "disarming the people?" Edit: The second video was great by the way: "If you punch me right now, its not your fist that did it, its your brain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 There is a direct correlation between the concerns of people unwilling to be disarmed by their government and the actions of previous tyrants. Your "Godwins Law" is not applicable here, because the argument starts out with a correlation. It doesn't end up there. You may call it absurd. Many people believe it's not. Not because they're idiots, but they believe they see correlations and consistencies with events in history. They have quotes and beliefs from our founding fathers to assist their beliefs. You have a "law" created over the internet. Who is right? I'm not smart enough to know. But I know what I believe. I know what I believe is not "absurd" nor a "fallacy". I also know that I can have a conversation with somebody with a dissenting opinion without throwing words out to make myself seem smarter and to belittle them. Who is pushing for the population to be completely disarmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Who is pushing for the population to be completely disarmed? You know,, Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Obama. Peas in a pod. People are idiots, really. They'll believe anything... especially if it can help them avoid facing their own part of the problem. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Who is pushing for the population to be completely disarmed? Some on the far Left, but the grown ups know it'll never happen, but the gun lobby would have people believe that Obama is going to take their guns, they already believe he is Hitler and Stalin rolled into one, but invoking Godwin's law is perfectly reasonable, because once the guns are gone we'll be helpless to resist the FEMA concentration camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This man personifies the sick, twisted love affair some people have with their firearms. It is mystifying to me, fascinating to see, and a bit horrifying really. These people spout revolution and issue a call to arms at the mere mention of broaching a discussion on enhanced gun laws. They are like paranoid, jealous lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The thing is, basically no one is talking about disarming the people. We are talking about reasonable regulations to protect people. Who is pushing for the population to be completely disarmed? Reading through this thread, I was wondering when people would point this out. Thank you, gentlemen. Worrying about thuh gub'mint taking away all of your guns is preposterous. That's not the issue -- no thanks to Alex Jones, who if anything serves as a great example of exactly the type of nut you'd want to keep far, far away from firearms and sharp things. Not to mention car keys, household medication, wet floors, and mattress tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 There is a direct correlation between the concerns of people unwilling to be disarmed by their government and the actions of previous tyrants. Your "Godwins Law" is not applicable here, because the argument starts out with a correlation. It doesn't end up there. You may call it absurd. Many people believe it's not. Not because they're idiots, but they believe they see correlations and consistencies with events in history. They have quotes and beliefs from our founding fathers to assist their beliefs. You have a "law" created over the internet. Who is right? I'm not smart enough to know. But I know what I believe. I know what I believe is not "absurd" nor a "fallacy". I also know that I can have a conversation with somebody with a dissenting opinion without throwing words out to make myself seem smarter and to belittle them. Are you Alex Jones in disguise? Do you really think that Hitler is an apt comparison to make anytime anyone suggests any consideration of any form of gun control? If not, then pipe down. We aren't talking about you, and we aren't insulting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Alex Jones is like that all the time. He will talk at you about his cereal. You can literally turn around and walk away from him and he will continue to talk at you or just turn and continue to talk at someone else. He is annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 As long as we're talking about right wing nutters... http://www.examiner.com/article/prof-newtown-didn-t-happen-blames-obama-for-hoax Prof: Newtown didn't happen: Blames Obama for 'hoax' A Prof. claims that the Newtown tragedy didn't happen as it was reported by the media. On Jan. 8, Radar Online reported that a Florida Atlantic University communications professor named James Tracy has suggested that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month was actually a planned hoax put in to play by the Obama administration. "As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends," Prof. Tracy wrote on his blog, memoryholeblog.com. MORE (SADLY) AFTER THE LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I have read about the "newtown hoax" quite a bit. It is utterly fascinating Most of it is centered around the video of the murdered girls father smiling before he speaks to the press. They claim he is an actor. ---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 12:36 PM ---------- See if this video link works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I have read about the "newtown hoax" quite a bit. It is utterly fascinatingMost of it is centered around the video of the murdered girls father smiling before he speaks to the press. They claim he is an actor. Oh sweet mercies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The 2nd amendment won't do diddly squat to protect you in case of a nation wide revolution. How delusional are these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 at the very idea of a revolution. Maybe we should encourage it. these clowns won't stand a friggin' chance, and they'll all be killed. Addition by subtraction. Please, morons. Try it and find out just how ****ing far gone the original intent of the second is. the only way any revolt like this lasts more than a week is if they find a GOOD hiding place and STAY in it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This guy is insane. Earned a lot of respect for Piers Morgan, the way he handled that interview. How is the military industrial complex capable of pulling off 9/11 with no one finding out yet is still not able to "get our guns" if they wanted to? Or just overthrow the government directly? Nobody is asking for no guns, just much, much, much more restriction on purchasing and owning them, especially weapons with 100s of rounds.... Problem is, this guy would never pass a psych test to own one. Jones talks about guns as if the current situation was honkey dorey. "ban knifes and rocks" sure, b/c a death machine is the same as a utensil and earth....great point. the level of paranoia on this guy is unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I seriously blame our education system. Large portions of our population are too stupid to use the Internet. All these libertarian conspiracy loving gun toting alarmists... They are sinking deeper into their own pit every year. Infowars.com indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 at the very idea of a revolution.Maybe we should encourage it. these clowns won't stand a friggin' chance, and they'll all be killed. Addition by subtraction. Please, morons. Try it and find out just how ****ing far gone the original intent of the second is. the only way any revolt like this lasts more than a week is if they find a GOOD hiding place and STAY in it. ~Bang Well it happens all the time in Hollywood, so clearly it could work in the real world, with 21st century technology, and not muskets and cannons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 ....a planned hoax put in to play by the Obama administration. "Obama is coming for our guns." A long used talking point of the NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The thing is, basically no one is talking about disarming the people. We are talking about reasonable regulations to protect people.The way some pro-gun people talk, its like I have a responsibility or a duty to own a gun, not just a right. That its my fault for not having a gun, or wanting one. Again, no one is saying that you can't have a gun. People are saying, you don't need a gun that can shoot 100 bullets in five seconds. Or armor piercing bullets. Is saying people shouldn't have nuclear weapons "disarming the people?" Oh I agree with you. I'm right in the middle. I like my guns for home protection, not sure why anybody would need an AK-47 or the like. But it's obviously in the constitution and I don't feel I have the right to tell anybody that they can't own a (legal)firearm that they want. My probelm is the sweeping generalizations of people. It seems these days arguments are based more on ridicule than thought and discussion. It's sad to see, in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s Commonplace Book...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” — George Mason The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson There is a direct correlation between the concerns of people unwilling to be disarmed by their government and the actions of previous tyrants. Your "Godwins Law" is not applicable here, because the argument starts out with a correlation. It doesn't end up there. You may call it absurd. Many people believe it's not. Not because they're idiots, but they believe they see correlations and consistencies with events in history. They have quotes and beliefs from our founding fathers to assist their beliefs. You have a "law" created over the internet. Who is right? I'm not smart enough to know. But I know what I believe. I know what I believe is not "absurd" nor a "fallacy". I also know that I can have a conversation with somebody with a dissenting opinion without throwing words out to make myself seem smarter and to belittle them. This is one of those posts that have me looking for the "like" button. But Poman, that seems to be the trend, especially on ES as of late; if you lean left you're of higher intelligence and morally uncorrupt; everyone else are bigots, fear mongers, lunatics, idiots, rednecks, gun toting-bible thumping-out of touch dumbasses. Their opinions and political views are thinly veiled behind "tolerance and equality" but they're the most intolerant and hardheaded people I've ever seen. You make a post stating your opinion and it's like blood in the water, you get bombarded with all the fradulant lables mentioned above and your intelligence is indicted because you believe in God and a persons right to own a gun. Speaking of out of touch, I'd argue that the vast majority of people who feel they're in touch are so blind they can't see a fact in front of their face. They get their "news" and opinions the same way those on the other side get theirs, news, magazines, internet and books. Most of which are merely a persons opinion with some loosely interpreted statistics. If it supports their personal views IT'S A FACT! If not, well that's a bunch of fabricated GOP bull****, you can't believe that. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would believe a journalist or reporter...unless of course their news makes me feel like I'm smarter than everybody else. I personally interact with students everyday, ages 15-18. All they know is what the news or their Mom and Dad tell them, if they know anything at all. I asked them 9/11, "all I know are some planes or something hit a building". The recent tragedy in Newtown "what happened, somebody shot some people or something". Some of these kids are old enough to vote now and the rest will be in just a few years. These "kids" have the power to cast a vote and elect the leaders of our country! They vote because they're told "your unamerican if you don't". So they go to the polls armed with the same understanding of our society they have now and cast a vote for people they no NOTHING about! Mindless sheeple! Now, these same sheeple are inundated by opportunistic politicians pushing bans on a constitutional right and they support it because "oh yea, that guy I voted for supports it, so do I". What did he support again? I don't know, I just know I voted for him. Wow! Now that's future of our country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Saying something is a logical fallacy is NOT belittling to someone unless they take opposition to their position personally, which you have done twice now. If you've posted something like the pic above recently then I believe you're not only acting irresponsibly, but also engaging in intellectual laziness. For that I'll not apologize, and I told my friend who posted that stupid picture the same thing. The problem with that, is you believe you are intellectually superior, and that justifies whatever actions you take. That's a slippery slope IMO. You call something intellectually lazy because you believe you are correct. Just because somebody believes something else, does not mean they are idiots or don't know what they are talking about. You justify your argument by calling dissenters of your opinion "intellectually lazy". You offer nothing real to back up your position, just the assertion that the other side is stupid. I don't want to turn this into a big thing, I just wish arguments these days were more about pro/con of the issues than blanket generalizations of each side. As for my position, which I never really stated, I like having my guns for home protection. I don't know why anybody would need an AK-47 or the like, but I believe that(for now) they have the legal right to do so. I believe that to change that part of the constitution needs to be taken very seriously and be discussed intellectually. Anyway, I get annoyed when I see generalizations on either side. Cheers to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 As that? Gonna go with nope. Care to elaborate or is my opinion so far below your intellect it's not worth the effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Oh I agree with you. I'm right in the middle. I like my guns for home protection, not sure why anybody would need an AK-47 or the like. But it's obviously in the constitution and I don't feel I have the right to tell anybody that they can't own a (legal)firearm that they want. My probelm is the sweeping generalizations of people. It seems these days arguments are based more on ridicule than thought and discussion. It's sad to see, in my eyes. One can argue that the biggest "sweeping generalization" of all is the NRA-pushed notion that the Second Amendment means Absolutely NO Restrictions on Gun Ownership of Any Type. The "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment doesn't exist in their world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.