Who Won The Debate Morgan Or Jones?

Originally posted by Plugin
Morgan just wanted to show that gun supporters are crazy people; so he kinda treated Jones as 1 and Jones didn't kept his head cool (of course with his temper and compassion, it doesn't take much to trigger).

So Morgan just sat there like; hi crazy guy, just rave so I show the people, gun supporters are crazy guys.

And again conspiracy people are looked at even more as just silly people.

It's like when Al Gore made his movie on Global warming, with that; he just accomplishment basicly that more people don't believe in human caused global warming. Or was that the goal as well?

edit on 9-1-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Playing devils advocate here:

What if Alex's main objective was to activate gun owners and reinvigorate their 1776 spirit? What if he wanted to get the soft patriots to become hard patriots?

reply to post by ThinkingCap


there's no such thing as bad press

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
There's many ways to perceive this little event that went down.

Basically Piers Morgan had this great plan, 100,000 people voted on deporting him, so he does what he does best - invites people to have a moot argument with. Only this time, he'd invite Alex Jones and Joe Apaio, two people that anyone who takes the field of Conspiracy seriously is wary of (due to their antics).

He kills two birds with one stone, he gets people back on his side and he discredits conspiracy theorists.

What do you do when you want a group of people to disagree with the truth? You hoist up a crazy person and give them the script.

If you guys even watched his "interview" with Joe Apaio, you can clearly see that Piers Morgan passed up the chance to even debate with him. He merely repeated the same moot statistics, and relaxedly ended the interview when the audience fell asleep.

You can say what you want about Alex Jones, but what matters is that he nor his colleagues are chess players.
AJ fell righ into Piers Morgan & Co.'s trap.

It's as simple as that.

Thats one way to look at it, out of the many ways to be 'perceived', your words.

Its not 'as simple as that'. Again, your words.


Alex Jones used a lot of key words that I found to be targeted to specific groups. He said 1776 will rise again, he repeatedly stated he had millions of viewers, he DEMANDED people search "DEMOCIDE" and what do you know? He has spiked searches and is trending and the same for the term "DEMOCIDE". Why would so many people search DEMOCIDE and even TWEET about it making it a worldwide TRENDING topic, if you and others say he was completely written off?

I feel like people who completely shut down on Alex Jones' 'cnn performance' are playing right into the narrative, of CNN, of Piers Morgan, and his producers.

You have a simple mind, you see 'crazy' and you automatically think 'crazy'. Don't forget Alex Jones built a million dollar operation on spreading ATS-style news and doing a hell of a better job at it than we are.

I'm not even a fan of Alex Jones and I see this.

I do not take sides in political disputes. Personally I don't have a gun, and believe that the ownership of them, while not all bad, such as a rifle for hunting, is mostly bad. And that violent crimes and deaths, and suicides would decrease with less guns around.

I agree that not all violence and crime will be done away with by curtailing gun use, that is not the point.

As far as rebellion? God in his due time takes all to an accounting, even governments. If he allows them to exist for the time being a Christian should submit to them and be obedient to them as far as Caesar's law does not conflict with God's law.

All that being said, I watched the video. I do not have CNN and do not watch Piers Morgan, so I do not know him. I have seen a lot of Alex Jones stuff though. I believe he has a lot of knowledge on certain things, but he also jumps to a lot of conclusions that are wrong.

Anyway I believe that Piers Morgan came across as very reasonable in his stance, and Alex Jones came across as a bullying fool. I am embarrassed for him. I would never dare treat anyone the way he was treating that man in private, much less in public like that. The way he raised his voice in anger and refused to answer* questions and respond logically, and the way he was yelling really was very disturbing to say the least.

Originally posted by SubAce And that violent crimes and deaths, and suicides would decrease with less guns around.

Have you actually looked at the statistics for yourself? I think you'll be surprised to find out it is actually the opposite that is true.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by SubAce And that violent crimes and deaths, and suicides would decrease with less guns around.

Have you actually looked at the statistics for yourself? I think you'll be surprised to find out it is actually the opposite that is true.

I agree that violence will exist with or without guns. As I stated, that isn't the point. It is logical that less violence would occur. At least, less lethal violence.

Let me give you an example. Let's say someone gets really really depressed for some reason. And decides to take their life. It is very easy if you have a loaded pistol in your drawer, to take it out, in a moment of despair, and pull the trigger. Much easier than many other ways a person can take their life. I'm not saying people don't take thier lives other ways, but a gun facilitates the act. It becomes much easier. And in a moment of haste a lot of damage is done that cannot be undone.

Let's say you are angry at someone and you have a gun and you pull it and shoot them. This happens all the time. Afterwards you think, man I was stupid. I wish I didn't have that gun. Even if you hit the person with your fists*, you will have been better off, because you have a lot less likelihood of committing murder, although your act of violence is still wrong.

Does that make sense?

Nevertheless, a sign of the time is that an increasing of lawlessness will exist. And arms do facilitate the working of lawlessness and bad deeds. Corruption is everywhere. I personally would not own a firearm for protection.

IF, and I say if, because I don't, if I hunted for food, I don't see a problem having a rifle for that purpose. I have hunted before for Elk. Also I have had been with a friend who carried a firearm in Alaska where it was required by law, not to protect myself against other humans but to protect against bears, where we were.

I don't totally disagree with owning a firearm. But for the purpose of killing another human, I personally do not agree with that. Again I don't take sides in political debates, I am not trying to make a political statement. Just a personal one. Jehovah's Witnesses don't involve ourselves in politics and we don't take sides in war.

That is why Hitler, among many others, persecuted us and sent us to concentration camps and killed us. Because we refused to bear arms to kill other people.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Plugin
Morgan just wanted to show that gun supporters are crazy people; so he kinda treated Jones as 1 and Jones didn't kept his head cool (of course with his temper and compassion, it doesn't take much to trigger).

So Morgan just sat there like; hi crazy guy, just rave so I show the people, gun supporters are crazy guys.

And again conspiracy people are looked at even more as just silly people.

It's like when Al Gore made his movie on Global warming, with that; he just accomplishment basicly that more people don't believe in human caused global warming. Or was that the goal as well?

edit on 9-1-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Playing devils advocate here:

What if Alex's main objective was to activate gun owners and reinvigorate their 1776 spirit? What if he wanted to get the soft patriots to become hard patriots?

Well this accompliments two things, true, as kinda America itself is divided in 2 camps? First they want the help from the government fighting the enemy's of 9-11 but they don't want the government taking their own right to defend themself.
I even get confused myself now, in what Americans want or not. It's getting more weird. It's like the american spirit is breaking somehow? But I'm not an american, just an outsider and it's getting more foggy for sure, as I guess for themself as well in; what to believe/stand for.

And it's kinda also here in Europe that people don't know what to believe and where they loose trust in those people in power, that they are not here for us but selling it always like that but getting the opposite where everyone is getting a feeling of feeling more powerless/that they can't do anything.

So having a gun/that right feels at least having some feeling of control/power. So yea Jones surely has gotten many many american's on his side with raving like that.

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by BuzzCory

 

he's not a legal citizen therefore has no first amendment rights and can be deported for saying we should not have assault rifles because members of foreign press cannot undermine our constitution while physically in america. we deported a communist before for promoting communism in the press while not being a citizen. the uk can hang piers morgan if the uk doesn't want them.

And you have links to factual information that backs up your contentions?
This would appear to fall under the category of "Freedom of the Press", would it not?

What are the circumstances of the "deportation of a communist for promoting communism in the press while not being a citizen", & how does this compare to the expression of an opinion on gun control?

Originally posted by sam_inc
disinfo ATS-CIA members needs to go in a corner and cry! Alex Jones won, and it wasnt a debate, it was a FYI

PA yeah right!!!

reply to post by SubAce


"Let's say you are angry at someone and you have a gun and you pull it and shoot them" have you looked at photos of the ted bundy murder kit? no guns. it's against the code of the west to shoot an unarmed man

"Let me give you an example. Let's say someone get really really depressed for some reason. And decides to take their life."
and they jump off a cliff right? a few moments then you're liquified, taking less time than loading, cocking and placing, it begins with a single step or a front flip.

"Does that make sense?" no

"Nevertheless, a sign of the time is that an increasing of lawlessness will exist. And arms do facilitate the working of lawlessness and bad deeds. Corruption is everywhere. I personally would not own a firearm for protection."

if lawlessness exists at increasing numbers, then i will defend myself with tools that the other humanoids are using to opress me and other humanoids.

"I don't totally disagree with owning a firearm. But for the purpose of killing another human, I personally do not agree with that." what law abiding gun owner would? i own a wwII era sniper rifle, deadly at 1000 yards, and hope it never comes down to it but for survival, why hesitate?

"That is why Hitler, among many others, persecuted us and sent us to concentration camps and killed us. Because we refused to bear arms to kill other people."

the national socialist regime would have been short lived if the citizens did not turn in their arms. if you must do so to escape, do whatever it takes.

"Jehovah's Witnesses don't involve ourselves in politics and we don't take sides in war." well you better repremand yourself when talking about guns because the 2nd amendment stirs both government and war together. hail thor son of odin.

Alex lost it.
I was hoping Alex would hold it together. But like we all guessed he cracked up and went into A finger pointing rant and was not answering the simple questions that were put to him.

If he would of just held it together answered the questions and then came back with some of his own researched statistics in a calm manner it would of been an interesting debate.

Alex had a great chance to speak up to a huge audience and failed and "they" knew it.

reply to post by gortex


Never been an Alex Jones fan, but I think he won the so called debate. He is expressing how half of this country feels, and it is getting scary. The level of anger out there is most alarming, and I think that when it comes to gun hypocrisy our gov't is hard to compete with.

They are arming half the terrorists in the world, and they need to look to themselves because the average sportsman is not selling guns to the mexican gangs, but that is what the goverment is doing. This country is really starting to get scary. How did we get so off track?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Nah you are mistaking me.

I was giving you my interpretation of what the agenda behind what went down.
Not once did I deny Alex Jones didn't successfully get his message out.

The problem is HOW he got the message out. If he had some tact he could have easily made his points without freaking out or as I put it, playing into Morgan's plan.

reply to post by Ezappa


but piers was only talking about recent events. alex was talking about history, and recent events plus how the need to be armed is a hiccup in repeating history. plus piers was kind of making retarded points due to the fact that they could have talked about england when it was 300+ years old.

Jones was correct although both were guilty of doing stage theatrics. The thing is, many of those pushing for the banning of guns will be the first to sign up to take jobs carrrying them to take them away from others.
The gun ban does not have the support of the people but watch it get past anyway. They'll lie again and tell us otherwise and demonize those who tell the truth.
My advice, ignore the government they no longer serrve you and have taken an adversarial position against all of us and the country as a whole. They still tax us but don't represent us, only their own interests.
Wasn't that what 1776 was all about?

reply to post by Dutchowl


also remember, he who fires first loses the war

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by Dutchowl

 

also remember, he who fires first loses the war

The government won't be firing first for sure. They would only be arresting people who own but haven't registered the weapons.

Or do you want to categorise the passage of the bill itself as "firing first"?

If alex tells the truth why aren't the Chinese government , the British government and Russian(both without death penalty) not mass killing their civilians at the moment? Why not in other parts of that evil EU? If they really want to, they can poison their population via drinking water etc. An assault rifle wont help you then. But as Piers tried to explain those assault rifles are the weapons used in the last 3/4 shootings, imagine Virginia tech or Denver with a blade?...no i can't..

I had not seen that clip of those two yet or been any part of any of the gun control debate or english hatred that has sprung up here and was shocked at how badly alex jones comes across. In my opinion he played into the hands of Morgan.

Both men are awful but Alex jones made a right royal prick out of him self, 100%.

He was childish, brutish and lost control.

Putting on that English accent at the end had me in stitches, way to go Alex, make all of America look like 12 year olds in the school playground. Pathetic

That's no way to win a debate/discussion/conversation. Infact if every american like him does own a gun then the government should take them away... dangerous angry bloke with guns

what a twat

oh and to answer the op's question - morgan won

I, like most free thinking individuals native to the united kingdom, believe that piers morgan is mostly what alex jones said he is. A hack journalist who has been effectively exiled from popularity in our country and has gone over to the us (I wouldn't be so drastic as to say fled) at the opportunity of better pay with a clean(er) slate.

However, and this is a big one - as much as I dislike the man's previous history and opinions, I believe he came across in this 'debate' as fair and level-headed. I never thought i'd see the day.

Alex jones had an enormously valuable opportunity to win over liberals on the national stage, to engage in reasoned, intelligible dialogue on the state of his country as he see it, and to offer his and his show's audiences opinions on what the real solutions are to decreasing gun crime in the usa.

With his outlandishly theatrical outbursts, absurd rants, and an uncontrollable urge to rudely shout his way through a conversation - he has gone from fringe nutjob to mainstream nutjob in one interview.

Shame on you alex, you had a chance to do things right. Now you're just going to be dragged on these shows to up the ratings. Bringing up tower 7 in a conversation about gun control? Seriously?

I know he sits on his show all day ranting incessently into a microphone, but no matter how much truth you're spouting, no-one of any worth will listen if you have the oratory skills of an 8 year old bully.

Lastly, the UK is not a police state, we are not in a dictatorship, we are not oppressed akin to east berlin before the wall, we are free people. To address our gun crime As PM said (which can be debated) we have on average 35 fatal gun crimes here a year. How many do the states have again?

I find it shocking how people can hand-on-their-heart say that banning (which doesn't actually mean banning at all if you look at our gun laws) guns would NOT decrease gun crime. How simple are you?

Here's a link to a united nations report on firearm homicides.

www.unodc.org...

The uk has one of the lowest rates of gun crime (0.7 per 100). Now do you think that is because we do not have a second amendment right to bear arms easily, or for some other reason? Serious question.