Alex Jones' Stance On Net Neutrality Proves He Is A Shill

Here's something interesting.

I've never really liked Alex Jones. I always found him as someone who can't control himself. Heck he can't even handle a proper debate without going out of control.

But if Alex really is against Net Neutrality, then hopefully it will get people to wake up and stop following Alex like he's a god. Hmm this thread sounds like a mix of a rant as well.

Alot of people are claiming that the reason why he's suddenly against it is because he is so blinded and ignorant by his hate of Obama that now he's against Net Neutrality simply because Obama supports it.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on Alex Jone's newest statement, and Net Neutrality?

a reply to: Kuroodo

Today's NLBS is about just that. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh wow. I didn't even notice that (I tend to ignore the front page nowadays). Welp looks like I dun-goofd in my own ignorance

Lock away mods!

Infowars Was The Original Website That Opened My Mind Up To Conspiracies And Questioning Of The Government And Official Stories. Luckily I Have Moved Forward From Their Information But I'm Still Thankful Towards Them Cause They Did Play A Role Of My Awakening. But With That Said I Now Find Alex Jones To Be A Complete Joke. Sure He Says A Hint Of The Truth Every Now And Then But It's So Mixed Up With Lies, Fear And Negativity That The Truth Never Gets Noticed Or Paid Attention Too. He's Even On A Local Radio Station Now In The Northwest And I Kid You Not A Guest On His Show Just A Few Days Ago Said That One Of The Products Alex Jones Is Endorsing Has Cured Some Of Their Members From Homosexuality. All I Could Do Was Laugh And Change The Station But The Ass Thing Is Alot Of People Are Going T Believe Him And Never Question Alex Jones Himself

a reply to: Kuroodo

OP. I think AJ's point is... what is the hidden agenda here? On paper, classifying "the internet" under Title 2 sounds good, but what is up his sleeve for Title 2? Is there a piece of legislation that will get porked onto another bill that will change Title 2, below the radar? Will ISPs be required to obtain a broadcast license, since they are essentially "transmitting a signal" that falls under Title 2 control? Will content then be subject to censorship under Title 5? Can members of the public lodge complaints where the FCC has the authority to suspend/revoke licenses and levy fines?

Why should we suddenly trust the Obama administration on this ONE thing? I'm not sure we should, frankly. The government doesn't do anything unless there are dollar signs in their eyes, or their corporate masters' eyes.

I'll add this: You might argue that the FCC maintains a relatively hands-off policy with regard to TV/cable content, but who controls those entities? The same six companies that control all media, who espouse the same principles as the administration - except they don't control the internet. How would you squelch alternative media? Classify it under Title 2 so the FCC can control content. THAT could be the end game, IMO.

Don't really know much about Alex Jones but I recall a rumor that he had CIA ties.

Now I don't know if that was ever confirmed or if its true, but would the CIA be interested in controlling what propaganda people got to see and hear?

Also wouldn't undoing net neutrality give the CIA Controlled-ISP Oligopoly more control of what the people get to see and hear online?

LIke I said, I don't know if he has any CIA ties but undoing net neutrality would appear to go in line with what the CIA would like to happen to the internet.

But more realistic its probably about the money. The Oligopoly lobbyist are spending a lot of money on anti net neutrality propaganda and he is probably getting a piece of that action.

a reply to: Kuroodo

I think Alex Jones and David Icke are nutters that give conspiracy theory a bad image.

Alex Jones is one of those people where I wouldn't be surprised if he was a shill. It's kinda one of those things where you have to pay attention to the stuff he says though because more than likely truth is thrown in here and there mixed with lies.

Just one of those things.

a reply to: Kuroodo

The vibe I get from Alex Jones is that the dude is insane. Whether it qualifies him as a shill or not, I dunno. I have seen a whole lot of people not understanding what net neutrality is. I've also seen a whole lot of people that, like Jones here, think that anything involving the federal government (or Obama) doing anything is instantly going to be bad for everybody (bias). The combination of the two preceding factors basically creates responses like Jones. That doesn't necessarily make Jones a shill. It does make him a biased idiot on the subject. The insane part? Just listen to him.

I honestly don't understand why people listen to Jones or Icke at all for that matter. Both, to me, seem mentally unstable and when has that ever been a good source of opinion?

Yeah he straight up lied on his show about net neutrality. He twisted everything around so he certainly gives off all the signs of a bought and paid for shill. I wonder how much comcast paid him for that segment.

Alex Jones's brains must look like scrambled eggs by now.

a reply to: Kuroodo

Not quite sure the word "SHILL" is the correct term....

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working.

en.wikipedia.org...

...but I get what you mean....

a reply to: Kuroodo

Jones is a great businessman. So its very interesting to see this response.

There are basically two levels to net neutrality:
1) The belief that carriers should not be able to block or slow down content based on the (legal) content.
2) The belief that carriers should not be able to slow down or speed up content based on price.

The opposition to net neutrality is divided based on whether they are against just point 2 (telecom nerds), or points 2 and 1. (mass media shills no one wants to watch.)

The first group, the telecom nerds, would like to be able to offer priority services to companies who run things like online gaming servers. 1/8 second latency will screw you up in a game, so the idea (for instance) is to push the gaming packets through with low latency at times of high network traffic, so ATS gets the 1/8 second latency on page loads, which is not a big deal for just reading. These nerds claim that this model is necessary to pay for better infrastructure, for fatter pipes in the long run: They can't pass all the costs on to users for infrastructure that doesn't need to exist yet, they need to be able to charge long vision companies to do it. Their ideas are reasonable enough to debate.

The second group, the mass media shills, is involved in a fantasy, that cable TV will rise again and people will stop watching content from the smaller sources they've discovered online, and that getting rid of a neutral internet is the way to do it. If Jones is aligned with this group, it means he's reached a point where he's making enough money to really consider himself mainstream media, and is most threatened by other small guys. That's an interesting thing to know about him, but these ideas really are insane.

The best critique of group 2 that I've read, hasn't come from the left at all (for all you folks wary of Obama here) it came from the weekly standard. They said:
www.weeklystandard.com...
If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better Internet. Sounds like capitalism.
And someone will be positioned to get rid of these cable companies if they get oppressive in their offerings and force shills on us. Last time I experienced cable TV a few months ago was shocked at what an awkward 2003 Nokia flip phone of an experience it was. And like those early cell phone makers, they got complacent and let their products go from cutting edge to just sitting on top feeling entitled to their profits while technological possibilities went unchecked. The smart phone of TV and delivery infrastructure is now very much a possibility, and if the customer demand is there (it will be) then spectrum and domain will follow, and silicon valley will take over yet another industry.

So those mass media shills need to let it go. One way or another, net neutrality or capitalism, people will get what they want.

a reply to: Kuroodo

I know what you mean about Jones. I was unaware of his existence till about a year or two ago. I remember watching something that a friend posted on facebook and thinking for a second that this guy was actually truly concerned as I was about the future of our country. I am also a person who, when arguing/debating, sometimes has difficulty controlling my voice volume or my emotions. Granted, I try very hard to maintain composure, but it doesn't always work.

I will say that I think that what Jones says should be taken with a grain of salt. He seems to enjoy sensationalizing things, which I don't entirely appreciate. It is sure entertaining, though--and I think that may be what Jones is after. I still have reserved my judgement of his character until the time when I can definitively say one way or the other. Because he may be legit and just kooky in the head, or he may be a shill. I'm on the fence. But leaning toward the legit. Perhaps it is due to his overemotional nature that he gets taken advantage of by TPTB. I guess I want to believe that he is good and just misunderstood. He reminds me a lot of a close friend of mine--a ginger boy with a bad temper who used to flip out in high school but who is literally one of the kindest and most legit people you could hope to meet. Smart, too. I guess I recognize something in Jones' eyes when he gets mad--the look that he gets looks like he gets emotionally hurt and not mad, exactly. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see, though.

"I honestly don't understand why people listen to Jones or Icke at all for that matter. Both, to me, seem mentally unstable and when has that ever been a good source of opinion?" -- WhiteAlice

OMG ICKE IS FKING NUTS. I had this in-depth tiff with a friend on facebook about this!!! She's this older lady I met through a friend who is really legit about most things but believes that Icke nonsense! I mean, his research is really cool and I like his stuff on ritual sacrifice and stuff--seems legit. But once he starts getting into reptiles, I think he's a nut. The reptilian brain is just the cerebellum and brain stem and is reliable but tends to be somewhat rigid and compulsive. It isn't meaning a literal lizard or anything. Just because we share qualities with an animal doesn't mean that we become that animal for realsies. The lady I am talking about poo-pooed the idea of demons/trickster spirits/evil saying that that all was nonsense--BUT IN THE SAME BREATH SAID THE REPTILIAN SHYTT WAS LEGIT. LIKE WTF hahahaha

Logic OP xD


With regards to insanity:



CRAZY in the coconut!