[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] IF, and this an important question, IF you think a debate is designed to sway people to your point of view... ...who exactly do you think was swayed by Alex's tirade? Who, that didn't already agree with him, do you think came away thinking: "Wow, what a reasoned, intellectual and calm approach he took. He really struck me as a responsible gun owner that I'm glad has access to automatic assault weaponry. I can't ever envision him being anything less than a responsible mature adult with his 50+ guns that he claimed to have." I think Alex gave a giant boner to people like you who already agree with him and made anyone who was on the fence on the issue sit up and say, "Whoa...that dude was AMPED. Needs a chill pill before he hops on Piers and bites off his ear Mike Tyson style."nocoolnamejim
I know that he didn't appeal to the ridiculously unenthusiastic, passive sheeple that populate most of the the US. There is so little passion for liberty, good, and conscience here in America that this reaction doesn't surprise me in the least. People don't even know good from bad, so they can't recognize it when they see it.
Okay, followup question then. You've stated that most people will have a visceral negative reaction towards Alex in that interview. You then proceeded to call that vast majority "sheeple". What, exactly, is your goal here? To insult and annoy and make people who don't already agree with you less likely to ever be persuaded to support your point of view by showing something that they'll think is a crazy person ranting on national television and then calling them stupid for thinking that the person they are watching is crazy? In other words, you kind of just said you think most people who watch that interview will come across with a negative impression of Alex Jones and his viewpoints and then insulted them. You obviously AGREE with Alex's views. ... Why are you doing something that is, from your point of view, likely to harm and weaken your cause by giving it greater exposure and visibility? What's your end game here?The type of message that Alex brings to the American public isn't something that most will accept, period. It doesn't matter if you sugar-coat it or shove it in their faces like he did to Piers last night. It doesn't matter how many relevant facts, statistics, and historical references he presents. This is the type of message that the public has be pre-programmed to reject, largely by the mainstream media. People don't want to believe that bad things just happen in an imperfect world, so they try to ban guns to fix it. People like to think that they can fix things with solutions that are band-aids at best. They do it to feel good about themselves, like they're really making a difference. Unfortunately the only real difference they are making is restricting the liberties of people who remember what the 2nd Amendment was really about. History teaches us that giving up firearms or weakening the public's ability to arm themselves often leads to tyrannical government doing unspeakable things.
Humans by and large don't want to hear the type of message that Alex Jones presents. They're too busy with their smartphones, playing games, watching sports, Jersey Shore, Kardashians, or even educating themselves in fields that they hope to spend their lives indulged in. So why is this a bad thing? Because it distracts people from what's going on around them. They hear someone like Alex Jones, and immediately think that he's nuts and even potentially dangerous. He doesn't fit in with the mold of what they have been conditioned to think is normal. They don't see an immediate, in-your-face fulfillment of the things that he preaches, so they dismiss it. However, a quick look at the direction the US has taken post-9/11 should show us that all is not well. A few minutes spent researching admitted false flag events in the history of many powerful nations teaches us that this isn't far-fetched at all.
It's all an issue of perspective and conditioning. It's about what people want to hear, and what they're programmed to reject. I'd like to be able to tell you that all is well, and that there aren't a bunch of powerful, rich people at the top of the world's top 6 monopolies pulling almost all the strings, but I'd be lying. I'd like to be able to tell you that their intentions are good, and that they're just normal people who care about others. That too would be dishonest.
The question has always been- Are you even open to the truth if you hear it? We are so used to hearing meaningless crap that when something really hits hard, it scares us. It makes us want to call someone a nutjob and dismiss it so we can go on with our everyday lives. I understand. Truly, I do.
Log in to comment