CNN Jan 7th 2013: ALEX JONES on Piers Morgan Tonight

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
So, anyone that questions the constitution is an enemy of the state? Is the constitution sacred?

Now you should understand why Alex Jones answered Piers questions with other irrelevant questions.

I already answered you that there is a legal process for amending the Constitution (learned that one in public school). To advocate the alteration of law and enforcement of law that violates that document especially one as critical as the first and second amendments would make you a domestic enemy which the elected officials, judges, and military are sworn to defeat.

What is sacred in your opinion?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
I fixed it for you...


Kudos to Alex Jones for being himself when faced with such a coward.

Anyone who refuses to listen, ignores other people, cannot control himself, cannot answer simple questions, cannot debate, sidesteps the subject and gets as angry as he does when he doesn't need to is a psycopath and letting him have his own show is just plain stupid.

An intimidating bully who makes the whole anti gun affair seem like a childish rant and does nothing for the cause.

Same old "me me me me" Piers.

Now it fits every other show that he has done, besides this one...

Good job you're not a plumber. Call that "fixed"?

Did you actually watch the interview or is this just a spoon fed kneejerk reaction? A.K.A. "The Alex Jones Reaction".

Yes, Alex was being Alex, which is why he needs to shut the **** up and actually STAND BY HIS COUNTRYMEN and debate the issue like an adult who posseses intelligence and at least a little common sense and courtesy. He does NO American any favours in the gun debate arena.

But NO, same old rant that achieves nothing but division and comedy.

The day Alex Jones is taken seriously will be when he acts like a grown up and stops "BEING HIMSELF" which is a pathetic coward who is afraid of anything that doesn't fit snugly within his bubble. NOTHING is open for debate and he always considers he is right all the time. His arguments are obtrusive to say the least and he is almost incapable of answering a perfectly straight question.

He is the pinnacle of NOT being able to "DENY IGNORANCE" and I have never seen so many toys thrown out of a pram in such a short amount of time.

Regardless of who supports what in this interview, it was a wonderful show of self control from Piers and a very sad show of juvenility from Alex. He needs a pacifier.

I take no sides here but I'd rather be in the presence of Mr Morgan than Mr Jones because debating against issues is FAR easier than debating against a personality with a blind ego and the latter leaves no room for progression.

Alex IS a coward. The day he sits quietly, listens, thinks, then replies with something of substance will be the day he contributes something worth listening to.

reply to post by ararisq

Is there really any point in continuing to answer your questions then?

Not if they're too hard for you

:-)

You asked me if there was anything I could tell you that would make you feel less afraid. I said no.

So, I'm wondering - does Alex make you feel less afraid?

Originally posted by MamaJ

So, anyone that questions the constitution is an enemy of the state?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

I didn't say that. If you don't understand by now.... Im sorry.

It is exactly what you said

and I do understand

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I don't know how all of the folks here feel about guns and our second amendment rights, but Alex Jones came off as a lunatic.

Nutshell.

The man is intelligent enough to hold a reasoned discussion, with the facts he had to hand.

Instead he came across extremely badly as a loud mouthed over opinionated thuggish moron.

And that's the issue here. If you're pro second amendment this guy acting like a poster child for the nut house really isn't doing you any favours - can you really run the risk of having someone coming across as borderline crazy as your advocate for gun rights?

reply to post by ararisq

already answered you that there is a legal process for amending the Constitution (learned that one in public school). To advocate the alteration of law and enforcement of law that violates that document especially one as critical as the first and second amendments would make you a domestic enemy which the elected officials, judges, and military are sworn to defeat. What is sacred in your opinion?

Are you including Thomas Jefferson saying it should be reviewed every twenty years?

Was he crapping on this "sacred" constitution that he mainly wrote too?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
You asked me if there was anything I could tell you that would make you feel less afraid. I said no.

I'm pretty sure I didn't. Read it again.

I asked you to start a thread and explain your position. That was one of them, because obviously you have this Zen attitude that we shouldn't worry if we're defenseless and there is nothing to worry about. You could believe we're all in the Matrix for all I know and I'm already under the assumption that every reply to you is making you grow larger and you'll soon terrorize Norway.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by nerbot
Kudos to Piers Morgan for remaining level headed when faced with such a coward.

Anyone who refuses to listen, ignores other people, cannot control himself, cannot answer simple questions, cannot debate, sidesteps the subject and gets as angry as he does when he doesn't need to is a psycopath and letting him own guns is just plain stupid.

You clearly don't watch much Piers Morgan. You just described him to a tee.

Does he own 50 guns?
Does he rant and shout like a baby?
Does he answer a simple question with an unrelated answer?
Does he get RACIST with a phoney accent?
Does he refuse to let other people speak?
Does he say he's finished talking and then blindly carry on?

lol

Alex would be a smart man if he spent at least a few seconds thinking between breaths.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Are you including Thomas Jefferson saying it should be reviewed every twenty years? Was he crapping on this "sacred" constitution that he mainly wrote too?

You mean this? Lets analyze how history repeats itself:

"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves."

In other words, some loud mouth Brits were telling the world we were Crazy Americans.

"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts?"

I guess replace that with Connecticut.

"And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion."

In other words, we should eliminate ourselves of those that would enslave us EVERY 20 years. Not disarm ourselves every 20 years.

"The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."

Well said sir. Well said.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I don't know how all of the folks here feel about guns and our second amendment rights, but Alex Jones came off as a lunatic.

Nutshell.

The man is intelligent enough to hold a reasoned discussion, with the facts he had to hand.

Instead he came across extremely badly as a loud mouthed over opinionated thuggish moron.

Absolutely right. We KNOW he can be smart when he needs to be which is why he needs to understand the importance of how he appeared on the show.

I imagine he lost support from some UK people with his pi** taking English accent. He makes enemies to have enemies and is certainly no ambassador with much idea of the outside world.

Does he own 50 guns? -> Him plus all of his body guards? Maybe. Does it matter?
Does he rant and shout like a baby? -> Yes, absolutely he does. Watch him sometimes.
Does he answer a simple question with an unrelated answer? -> What are you serious? I'm going to lose an eye replying to this.
Does he get RACIST with a phoney accent? -> Racist? Come on. Piers is his own race now?
Does he refuse to let other people speak? -> I'm starting to think your whole post was sarcasm.
Does he say he's finished talking and then blindly carry on? -> I get it now. Well done.

Originally posted by nerbot
I imagine he lost support from some UK people with his pi** taking English accent. He makes enemies to have enemies
and is certainly no ambassador with much idea of the outside world.

I would make him the ambassador to the UK in a heartbeat just for the fun of it.

Off topic a bit. Instead of Alex & Piers we should refer to them as Blow Hard 1 & BlowHard 2 Or The Hack & The insuffrable blowhard that replaced Larry King.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Also doesn't the 2nd have limitations? please tell me I do not know but seeing you can not have fully automatic guns or a nuclear bomb isn't that a limitation?

edit on 8-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

No, the second amendment doesn't have limitations. When they wanted to restrict the types of firearms in the past, they did it in a round about way, because they KNEW that it had no limitations. They applied a tax that must be paid to own certain types of firearms and made NOT paying that tax illegal.

It is a misnomer to state that someone was arrested for having an illegal gun.

They are arrested for tax evasion, not owning an illegal weapon.

Jaden

reply to post by ararisq

To advocate the alteration of law and enforcement of law that violates that document especially one as critical as the first and second amendments would make you a domestic enemy which the elected officials, judges, and military are sworn to defeat.

What if I'm using my first amendment rights to question my 2nd? :-)

Here's a question: what happens if we all vote on it?

What is sacred in your opinion?

Not anything written by people. Not even really really smart people

Not even really smart people who are also brave and wise

The constitution was written by men that understood - even way back then - that the law would have to work for a people that should (should) be able to think on their feet

Thinking being the most important part...there was some seriously great thinking involved in the creation of this country - and that document. For some reason some people think that once they had it they need never think again

Thinking is scary - but it's worth the risk - I think :-)

Two more questions for you:

Does Alex Jones make you feel less afraid? Do guns make you feel safer?

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by ararisq

 

already answered you that there is a legal process for amending the Constitution (learned that one in public school). To advocate the alteration of law and enforcement of law that violates that document especially one as critical as the first and second amendments would make you a domestic enemy which the elected officials, judges, and military are sworn to defeat. What is sacred in your opinion?

Are you including Thomas Jefferson saying it should be reviewed every twenty years?

Was he crapping on this "sacred" constitution that he mainly wrote too?

edit on 1/8/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

No he was referring to an usurpation of the constitution by those who wish to subvert it.

People aren't using the reason for the second amendment as an excuse to create a new govt. It is solely to prevent the usurpation of authority not granted to those that run said government.

Jaden

Originally posted by nerbot
I imagine he lost support from some UK people with his pi** taking English accent. He makes enemies to have enemies and is certainly no ambassador with much idea of the outside world.

I doubt it. We have a very self depreciating sense of humour anyway.

He just came across as an idiot from the moment he raised his voice. All he did with the accent was reinforce to me that he was pitching at kindergarten level.

Basic social etiquette really, if you raise your voice, shout people down and then resort to mockery you've lost the argument.

I quit reading the OP when i saw the link was Prison planet. AJ is nothing but entertainment. Modern times Orson Welles. If you want the true news, believe the opposite of what the MSM spinfeeds you.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by MamaJ

So, anyone that questions the constitution is an enemy of the state?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

I didn't say that. If you don't understand by now.... Im sorry.

It is exactly what you said

and I do understand

You obviously don't understand. Anyone who would subvert the constitution or try to pass laws that are against it without following the prescribed method for doing so, and any foreigner who tries to foment a disregard for it IS...

Do you not understand that concept. A US citizen voicing his opinion about the US constitution is protected speech, a foreigner doing so, is an enemy of the state who has no such protection. It's a type of espionage... fomenting discord amongst the populace.

Jaden

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by MamaJ

 

And I will tell you what a domestic enemy is as well... its one that ^^^^ you guessed it.... goes against the constitution and the peoples rights for freedom.

So, anyone that questions the constitution is an enemy of the state?

Is the constitution sacred?

To shoehorn my way into your discussion with MammaJ:

The beauty of the US Constitution is that it is a living document which was written with the idea that in the future there might be reason to add to it, take from it and modify it. However (and this is the critically important part that through the years countless elected officials has forgotten about; kind of like the way people forget about eating shrimp being forbidden in the Bible...) the US Constitution has a very specific process for amending/changing anything in it. This process is quite cumbersome and requires the voice of the populace to chime in to approve or disapprove of proposed alterations.

Therefore the US Constitution is quite the opposite of the enemy of the State; those who violate it by not adhering to it or altering it without following the very detailed process outlined in Article V, they are the enemy of the State.