posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:17 AM
What emotionally-driven nonsense this thread is.
So when William Cooper releases a video called "Exposing Alex Jones", which is little more than an hour-long rant making baseless accusations and
raving like a lunatic, it's considered a noble act of an honest man, but when AJ does a 9 minute piece on William Cooper, it's considered lies and
slander and misinformation.
What's the litmus test of credibility being used to determine who is slandering whom? If not solid facts and history, then it devolves into a rant.
Cooper WAS an alcoholic, and WAS unstable, according to friends and family. AJ mentioned the alcoholic bit at one point, and from then on out, Cooper
*hated* Alex Jones. Jones is a bigger egomaniac than Cooper though, so the back-and-forth continued until Cooper's death.
Why can't you just remember Cooper for the extremely interesting person he was, and stop projecting and warping your respect for him into disrespect
for Jones? The two had a personal conflict, and both had enormous egos, so they used their airtime to attack the other.
But you have to understand that their egos and airtime are the ONLY things they have in common. AJ covers politics and current events. Cooper covered
hidden history, black projects, UFOs, aliens, the less-provable stuff. AJ doesn't believe in that stuff, which only made the conflict worse.
I hear all the time, AJ must be dirty because he's still alive, and Cooper isn't. There are two big flaws with this. First, as stated above, their
subject matters were almost completely different. If Cooper was killed because of talking about a certain subject matter, then AJ would be safe
because he didn't cover it. Second, it implies that Cooper was murdered in cold blood, even though he actually shot one of the LEOs who came to
arrest him. I believe it was a deputy, fresh on the job.
[edit on 6-9-2010 by Son of Will]