I can't believe what comes out of this guys mouth when he is told about the NDAA. Gotta see to bel

Originally posted by dava6711
I personally think the guy probably thought the reporter was a paranoid 'snotty nosed kid' who hasn't done a real days labour in his entire life and therefore couldn't possibly be correct about this bill! I also got the impression that towards the end of the video he didn't truly believe the answers he was giving the reporter anyway. He'll no doubt go home read about the NDAA on the NET and be shocked about it! If one of his daughters were to be detained indefinitely his attitude and ideologies would soon change, that I can promise!

I am afraid you may be wrong about that.

If we investigate history, such as : Communist China or the USSR, or Nazi Germany for instance, we will discover that people WILL SELL OUT THEIR FAMILY for the State. Devotion and faith to the state can quickly override anything else.

This guy would probably turn his own daughter in on a platter.
Look at history, it's not out of the question.

Originally posted by Noromyxo
reply to post by logicalthinking

 

It's obvious that the guy is just reverse trolling. He just wanted the guy to get out of his face.
He didn't actually believe the garbage he was spouting...he was just trying to get a rise out of the
interviewer. (At least I HOPE so. I would hate to think that there are really people like that who are able to vote)
Noro

WOW! And mind reading capabilities to boot! You must be in VERY high demand for circus side-shows.

I don't find it terribly "Obvious". The guy sounds like a semi-literate dolt! And to think... he is permitted to vote. We are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO screwed!

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by dava6711
I personally think the guy probably thought the reporter was a paranoid 'snotty nosed kid' who hasn't done a real days labour in his entire life and therefore couldn't possibly be correct about this bill! I also got the impression that towards the end of the video he didn't truly believe the answers he was giving the reporter anyway. He'll no doubt go home read about the NDAA on the NET and be shocked about it! If one of his daughters were to be detained indefinitely his attitude and ideologies would soon change, that I can promise!

I am afraid you may be wrong about that.

If we investigate history, such as : Communist China or the USSR, or Nazi Germany for instance, we will discover that people WILL SELL OUT THEIR FAMILY for the State. Devotion and faith to the state can quickly override anything else.

This guy would probably turn his own daughter in on a platter.
Look at history, it's not out of the question.

Hey great post, the sad part is you're probably right, shame.........

Originally posted by kozmo
The guy sounds like a semi-literate dolt! And to think... he is permitted to vote. We are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO screwed!

Dare I state the obvious?

That this is the primary voting demographic numerically here?

This is who they WANT voting.

They = People who use govt to benefit themselves at the expense of citizens.

Most Americans would back anything as long as their team wanted it, just like when they check R or D down the ballot, don't even look at the names or position.

In fairness, this man was caught off guard, you have to appreciate what went down-

Once you get a person to state his opinion (which he did right at the beginning before even mentioning the NDAA), you could then present all the evidence under the sun, he isn't going to change his stance because that way he would be humiliated etc.

People do not like to admit they are wrong.

Of course this man does not believe killing innocent people is right, but re watch the interview-

He asks him if he supports the vice president or whoever it is. He says he does and his stance is now set.

Kind of #ty move on the interviewer's behalf IMO.

It's really going to hurt when he falls off that cloud he's been living on...

He should have asked him about someone personal, that's more confrontational that asking about himself. "What if they decided it was best to kill your wife? Or you grandchild?", he'd probably have freaked out because it'd confront him more directly, but perhaps that's what's needed for some people... Clearly he doesn't care about his won life, but I'm sure he does about some other people's lives.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
he isn't going to change his stance because that way he would be humiliated etc.

So if a interviewee is arrogant and prefers to stick with EGO over logic or rationality, it's the interviewers fault for setting them up?

No, don't think so.

You can't set me up so easily. If you reveal to me my own failure of thought, I will heed your warning and make necessary corrections.

For example, rather than agreeing with X atrocities, I would have plainly stated "I don't believe that bill entails those stipulations". Or some other "dismissive + skeptical" stance.
I understand that it could be construed as cognitive dissonance but that would have been the most intelligent way out of the ambush interview without looking like a bad guy.

Hell, we have the right to say "no comment" as well.
So many options to avoid these things, it's definitely our own fault if we say something stupid. No one else can be to blame for this.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
In fairness, this man was caught off guard, you have to appreciate what went down-

Once you get a person to state his opinion (which he did right at the beginning before even mentioning the NDAA), you could then present all the evidence under the sun, he isn't going to change his stance because that way he would be humiliated etc.

People do not like to admit they are wrong.

Of course this man does not believe killing innocent people is right, but re watch the interview-

He asks him if he supports the vice president or whoever it is. He says he does and his stance is now set.

Kind of #ty move on the interviewer's behalf IMO.

edit on 6-7-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-7-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)

Perhaps you're right, but there's a big difference between not wanting to admit you're wrong, and saying the government can kill you if they think that's the right thing to do. He may be for the VP and everything, but that doesn't imply he should agree with being killed by the gov, two separate things.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
he isn't going to change his stance because that way he would be humiliated etc.

So if a interviewee is arrogant and prefers to stick with EGO over logic or rationality, it's the interviewers fault for setting them up?

No, don't think so.

You can't set me up so easily. If you reveal to me my own failure of thought, I will heed your warning and make necessary corrections.

For example, rather than agreeing with X atrocities, I would have plainly stated "I don't believe that bill entails those stipulations". Or some other "dismissive + skeptical" stance.
I understand that it could be construed as cognitive dissonance but that would have been the most intelligent way out of the ambush interview without looking like a bad guy.

Hell, we have the right to say "no comment" as well.
So many options to avoid these things, it's definitely our own fault if we say something stupid. No one else can be to blame for this.

edit on 6-7-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Let's imagine you're coming up to 60 or however old this man is.

You get some young guy with a mike and camera crew come up to you and ask you to state your opinion. You are saying you would say those things but he is on the spot with a microphone in his face.

Seriously, it doesn't matter what the interviewer said to him, he wasn't going to admit he was wrong.

That's the key word- 'admitting.'

The man in the video doesn't 100% agree with the things he is saying, surely you can see how one could be made to say silly things to defend their position- especially given a camera and mike in his face?

I agree most Americans are unaware of what the NDAA is etc, but take this video in context IMO.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I'm sorry but ultimately you cannot blame others for your own statements.
You have the right to remain silent, as anything you say can and will be used against you, etc etc.

We all know the drill.

As an example, it's not Stephen Colbert's fault that he can twist things around and get people to say really stupid things. Smart people say "no comment" when they are ambushed and don't want to have to argue stupid crap.

Then if the person keeps harassing you, request for them to leave you alone, and then if you must, leave to avoid them until they find another target or whatever.

Point is there are all sorts of ways out.
You would think by age 60 someone would know better, living in this country for this long?

How can people possibly get by without knowing any of their rights? In this instance, the right to remain silent. But on the other hand, if he is indignant, than perhaps he is proud of what he said, means it, final story? In that case, than he has the right to state his opinion, but also must face the counter-opinions others will suggest.

It all comes down to the "guns and butter" analogy. People aren't complaining because they are living in relative luxury. In fact, the poor in America live better than the upper class in Africa. Obama or any President can do whatever they wish, to the vast majority of the people, because they are completely sold on the idea that they are happy. Also, there is a team mentality at play here. The Democrat Team and the Republican Team, they have become religious ideologies for the 80 percent that buy-in. I am pretty sure that if we got an IQ test cross reference, we would find the democrats to be about 85, Republicans 95, and Independents about 120. Our political system is toast.

Wow! I would really hope that most people don't feel this way, that is absolutely crazy! I do think, though, that the man probably is only saying that to try to get his point across that he supports Obama, I think if the government actually did try to kill him, he would probably think differently...at least, I would hope so...

reply to post by Starwise


It seems likely that this interview was staged. It was just too surreal. Even a "brainwashed" man would have expressed himself with a little more "human-ness" I think. But, I guess the question must be, "why?" If it was an attempt to make liberal Democrats and Obama supporters look like buffoons, it failed miserably. I was just not convinced this guy was sincere about the things he expressed...No one could be that convinced that the government is so very trustworthy. I just don't buy it!

The guys ears and mind were shut down. Sheeple

You should have ask't him his job!
CIA assassin.

the sad thing is that most people are this stupid.

The fellow in the video was just annoyed that the obnoxious kid with the microphone was back. Who tracks someone down like that? I don't believe for a second that that guy believes what he was saying, but it's certainly going to be portrayed that way. In all likelihood it was an issue he wasn't familiar with and wasn't well equipped enough to answer, but he knew well enough that the kid with the mic had an agenda and he wasn't going to play the game. Towards the end he was just trying to get away, his tone was becoming more and more sarcastic/annoyed, he knew nothing he would say would make a difference.

It's middle school tactics. Anyone who went to middle school probably had, or at the very least, overheard a conversation like this:

"Dude, did you buy that shirt yourself?"
"Yeah."
"Dude, are you gay?"
"No."
"Dude, are you sure? You look pretty gay to me."
"Yeah, I'm sure."
"You know only gay dudes wear those shirts, right? Are you sure you aren't gay?"
"You know what, sure, yeah, I'm gay, totally gay, ok?"
"DUDE HE JUST ADMITTED HE'S GAY! OH MY GOD DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT, HE SAID HE'S GAY!?!"

As I said, middle school, immature teenage tactics.

This isn't a case of someone being a "sheep", it's a case of a guy who was trying to mind his own business being pestered by a kid with a microphone. If the interview would have been conducted in a mature fashion I'm sure the conversation would have been much different, perhaps resulting in someones eyes being opened instead of driving them away and leaving them uninformed.

Originally posted by logicalthinking
On July 3rd a free lance reporter by the name of Anthony Antonello is in Scranton PA asking the public questions when he comes across this man. I urge you to watch until the end when he catches back up with the guy. Amazing.

edit on 5-7-2012 by logicalthinking because: hi

It's disturbing but there are plenty of disturbed people out there. My parents voted democratic blindly for ANYONE until Jimmy Carter came along. Most minorities are the same way - all they really know is NOT to EVER vote for the conservative.

I'm hoping in the end that the smart people outnumber guys like this.

The bigger issue is we need to stop re-electing everyone. I mean EVERYONE. "Your guy stinks, but my guy is ok" is a disease we need to rid ourselves of. That Charlie Rangel can't even get beat in a primary tells us all we need to know. "One and Done" for all of them. ALL OF THEM.

We need a movement that basically says "Re-elect no one". Pledge that even if you think you're guy just had a great 4-year run as governor, or 2 years in the House, that he needs to go. If we could accomplish this, much of the corruption would take care of itself. The founding fathers served for duty - not for fame and fortune. When you see career Senators retire rich when they were elected middle-class - do you really need any other proof that this isn't working out for us?

Originally posted by logicalthinking
On July 3rd a free lance reporter by the name of Anthony Antonello is in Scranton PA asking the public questions when he comes across this man. I urge you to watch until the end when he catches back up with the guy. Amazing.

edit on 5-7-2012 by logicalthinking because: hi

It's disturbing but there are plenty of disturbed people out there. My parents voted democratic blindly for ANYONE until Jimmy Carter came along. Most minorities are the same way - all they really know is NOT to EVER vote for the conservative.

I'm hoping in the end that the smart people outnumber guys like this.

The bigger issue is we need to stop re-electing everyone. I mean EVERYONE. "Your guy stinks, but my guy is ok" is a disease we need to rid ourselves of. That Charlie Rangel can't even get beat in a primary tells us all we need to know. "One and Done" for all of them. ALL OF THEM.

We need a movement that basically says "Re-elect no one". Pledge that even if you think you're guy just had a great 4-year run as governor, or 2 years in the House, that he needs to go. If we could accomplish this, much of the corruption would take care of itself. The founding fathers served for duty - not for fame and fortune. When you see career Senators retire rich when they were elected middle-class - do you really need any other proof that this isn't working out for us?

Originally posted by caterpillage
"so, if the government wanted to kill you, you would support that"?
"absolutely."
wow, this guy...

Like a percentage of folks on ATS. Everyone has an opinion, it will be different to ours but it's their choice, no matter how bizzare it seems.