Alex Jones life Threatened On National TV

page: 8
74
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This is a nice video as well. Piers is owned:





posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaucheDroite

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I


"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.

"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.

"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?



edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording


So if someone says something about the US president along the same lines, do they get looked into by the Secret Service? I think so.

Unfortunately saying "it was a joke" afterwards is too late as the offender already said it. At minimum Piers and the other commentators should be looked at officially, sure nothing will come out of it since the elites got the police under wraps. Its the principle of it though.

Also it is criminal to threaten someone regardless of the 1st Amendment.


California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats). A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family, the threat is specific and unequivocal and you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.
www.shouselaw.com...
edit on 1/9/2013 by GaucheDroite because: (no reason given)


Yes this is California, but I am sure it applies to many states.
edit on 1/9/2013 by GaucheDroite because: (no reason given)


Yes, it was a clear illegality. Isn't that Gloria Allred sitting to the left. Doesn't she know the law?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Alex Jones Vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control Live On CNN

He may have been overhwelming, but coming on strong with the facts at the start was OK. And the manipulation of trying to pin how many murders in England, via guns, when they have all those other types of crimes, and he wouldn't stop even when AJ told him this was typical tactics and had already said they were low.

Quite enjoyed that one!

They tried to say he looked bad, asking for him to be deported. I was quite impressed, not your normal news show. Mind you didn't he have Jesse Ventura on?
edit on 9-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
@CosmicBob, no quarrel with you, just hashing out my POV vs yours. I don't like the double standard being presented. First off the 2nd amendment is not debatable, AJ is on the right side in this argument with Piers. But joke or not its a threat, again if AJ had said the same thing it would be front page news and spammed on CNN 24hrs a day, would it not?

Again all I see is you cherry picking, what about the commentators mentioning his children? You can keep side stepping if you want. You can keep saying it was satire/joke/not serious, etc, but it doesn't change the fact that a threat was made to someone and his family.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicBob
 


Well if you could spread that message to all the other lemmings that would be great



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Nina2010
 





I am sure if the the shoe was in another foot you would use it to condemn guns even further. You are a bad troll.


Maybe............. but only because Im now questioning AJs mental state.

I just rewatched the vid and it is absolutely appalling!!!!!!

The guy has most likely lost his marbles, I mean the end bit where he puts on the accent!!!! WTF was that about


I don't think AJ has lost his marbles. For decades the Elite have been pulling society's strings and making fun of them for their idiocy. This was AJ's opportunity to retaliate and start a revolution against the Elite. Tit for tat.

I wish there were more people like AJ to stand up for what they believe in.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


The Buzz rant makes Alex Jones sound reasonable.
The Anti Gun movement has a new poster boy. It's Buzz!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Can you link a source showing he knew they were fake?

Ive read nothing about that and would be very interested

I agree the joke was in bad taste and he should have realised that this would ensue, but it was a joke never the less and no one, not even the people using sensational headlines, actually thinks it was serious and that AJs life was in danger
edit on 9/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)


Well, whether you want to believe it or not what people in the media say or agree with DOES matter. We used to hold journalism to a certain degree of professionalism where even the lowest of the low tabloid journalists were held to a certain degree of accountability. If some nutjob goes out and acts on what Piers and Co. were joking about do you honestly think he should have no accountability for the things he said?


As requested.

Fake photos

Sorry, i just skip by time to time



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Alex went a little overboard, and as I was watching I thought "Jesus, what's he doing?". Then I looked up Morgan's interview with Larry Pratt. I think he was trying to give Piers a taste of his own medicine, which he obviously didn't like. Heres the video:




There's no being sensible with this guy.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhereIsTheBatman
This is a nice video as well. Piers is owned:



I loved this episode...especially when JV brings up the fact how BBC is corrupted by broadcasting building 7 collapsed 20 min before it actually happened shown below and PM totally denied this argument by JV:




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I should add this from Jeremy Paxman

Morgan Taught Me How to Hack Phones
edit on 9-1-2013 by TheMindWar because: Typo



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


VIDEO DOES NOT EXIST...try another link



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I should add this from Jeremy Paxman

Morgan Taught Me How to Hack Phomes


What`s a "phome"?????



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well atleast Alex is getting people talking about this subject



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I should add this from Jeremy Paxman

Morgan Taught Me How to Hack Phomes


What`s a "phome"?????


I am on my Iphome with small buttons and big thumbs



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaucheDroite
@CosmicBob, no quarrel with you, just hashing out my POV vs yours. I don't like the double standard being presented. First off the 2nd amendment is not debatable, AJ is on the right side in this argument with Piers. But joke or not its a threat, again if AJ had said the same thing it would be front page news and spammed on CNN 24hrs a day, would it not?

Again all I see is you cherry picking, what about the commentators mentioning his children? You can keep side stepping if you want. You can keep saying it was satire/joke/not serious, etc, but it doesn't change the fact that a threat was made to someone and his family.


No worries GaucheDroite, I've enough sportsmanship in me, I hope, to handle that others might disagree with me.


You have every right to agree with AJ on hid views about the 2nd Amendment, just as I have every right to try and convince you otherwise, whether I'm successful or not. My view on it however is that nothing is absolutely set in stone, and matters that effect the safety of everyone can and should be reviewed and freely debated in a changing society. But I believe that is a separate issue for another thread here on ATS, which I'm sure already exists.

I would be inclined to disagree with your statement that if AJ had said the same thing, in the same manner (satirical) it would be headline news. Again, it is a freedom of speech issue. As long as the entity conducting the interview isn't making actual threats instead of a statement used as a rhetorical device, it should be allowed.

I would be willing to admit that the statement made by Buzz and the other respondent (who made the statement about AJ's children) was probably in bad taste, and offensive given the context, but jokes can indeed be offensive. I don't believe, however, that the statements made were in any way with intent to do actual harm to AJ or his family, and by extension, I don't believe the statements made were necessarily illegal. AJ chose to take it as a threat and is definitely doing everything he can to let his listeners know about it. This creates an emotional response in his listeners who keep the buzz (pardon the bad pun) going about him and bring even more attention to him.

Just my view here: If I were given the opportunity to speak to AJ himself, I would tell him to grow up, get over himself and be the better person in all of this by a show of maturity and grace. Instead, he (or his organisation) perpetuates this idea that he is somehow now public enemy number one with mafia at his door and life on the line. I'm sure the government has more pressing matters right now than the silly rants of a loud man of whom most people disregard. It's all pretty creative. Childish, but makes for mediocre entertainment.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'm not a fan of Piers Morgan, but Alex Jones has just lost what little credibility he had and just succeeded in making himself look like a lunatic.

Millions of Americans listen to him? God help us all....

He would be far better just speaking in a calm rational manner, answering the questions and hammering home his points. Flailing about and screaming....I was both laughing and cringing. Also he needs to get his facts right as the burning of the Reichstag was 27th February 1933, not in April as he claimed.

Don't get me started on the "British" accent. *Facepalm"

If you didn't know who Alex Jones was and you tuned into that what on earth would you think?

Piers didn't have to do anything. Alex just destroyed himself.

After that hysterical performance it's hard not to believe that Alex Jones just puts on a big act.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I wonder when the media will be making a big deal about these threats like they did with Sarah Palin's "target" controversy and Giffords.

... Probably never.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Of course nothing is set in stone except for stone
. What about the populaces who've had their arms taken and then subsequently being under tyranny? This is why the 2nd amendment cannot be taken away or altered in some fashion by this/other administration, as we as a people are quite not ready for the next step in civilization unfortunately.

I would tell him the same in the same manner. While I do somewhat agree that the GOVT has other things that are more pressing, you cannot deny that they are definitely on a tangent of labeling/defining who the enemy is in the "battlefied/homeland/US" or w/e its called now. Are they not also arming themselves too? Now that could be due to the fact that the populace is armed, but wouldn't that be contradicting to what they are saying to the pro-gunners?

Pro-gunners want more guns but that's wrong? But its okay if the GOVT does so? Well that's how I see it going, just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaucheDroite
Of course nothing is set in stone except for stone
. What about the populaces who've had their arms taken and then subsequently being under tyranny? This is why the 2nd amendment cannot be taken away or altered in some fashion by this/other administration, as we as a people are quite not ready for the next step in civilization unfortunately.

I would tell him the same in the same manner. While I do somewhat agree that the GOVT has other things that are more pressing, you cannot deny that they are definitely on a tangent of labeling/defining who the enemy is in the "battlefied/homeland/US" or w/e its called now. Are they not also arming themselves too? Now that could be due to the fact that the populace is armed, but wouldn't that be contradicting to what they are saying to the pro-gunners?

Pro-gunners want more guns but that's wrong? But its okay if the GOVT does so? Well that's how I see it going, just my opinion.


I'm at risk of going off topic here, but I have to ask you, which populaces have enacted sensible gun control laws (we're not talking about total bans here, that would be impossible) have fallen to tyranny? If you could answer that briefly, I'll accept it, otherwise I think it best we take this discussion further in a thread more suited for it.





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join