No. Please provide an educated response as to why it is a joke. You're not addressing who he has on his show as guests and the interviews conducted over the years. Ad-hominem is not an adaquate response. You're response is way off the mark and quite innacurrate. What Jones does is take factual information and then show outrage, to which left wing media outlets call him a consipracy theorists and then he moderately responds with actual data (most of the time). I disagree with his methods but it works. His viewership on youtube has almost doubled in subscriptions in a year on youtube along.
While not the most intelligent thing, he disputed his own lawyer in court in terms of the character reference.
Gay frogs? There is factual data that Atrazine is causing homosexuality in frogs and even changing them into asexual. http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Chemtrails as a conspiracy? Well, we now have terms such as Geo engineering and even the Smithsonian has admitted that contrails from jets may be affecting our climate.
I don't care who he has on, he's pushed conspiracies of the Oklahoma City Bombings, September 11th, Sandy Hook Shooting, and the whole "Pizzagate" thing which lead to someone bringing a gun to the pizza parlor. His lawyer said in the custody battle for his kids that he's all an act, but he then contradicted his lawyer saying he's real and the court of law saw that he's unfit to care for his children and the mom should decide where to put the kids. That enough discredits whatever type of "news" he puts out to me.
Being legally required to "retract" these nutso stories shows he doesn't respond to facts but made-up and heavily twisted versions that he sees:
He doesn't think or properly check facts, he just spews whatever he wants to the point where it's dangerous
You've side stepped my response "Not even close. At least David Knight brings a balanced and less eccentric view to Infowars as well as the others on nightly news. Jones is not just the main player anymore. Paul Joseph Watson, while a bit too anti islam for me also has quite a bit of informative pieces and in my opinion is hilarious. Far more credible than the two previous mentions." and decided to answer someone else's but I'll bite.
I'm assuming that given the fact you've decided to respond to a comment that was posted to another user, and did not address the full remarks in my statement made to that user, that you concede that Jones is correct when addressing the "Gay frogs" theory and "Geo-Engineering".
"I don't care who he has on,
That ignorance alone discredits your opinion. If you are not willing to view all sides of the spectrum, then it makes it much harder to have an informative opinion. Conspiracies are not always crazy as the media attempts to make them. 9/11 left many unanswered questions to which groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have vigorously disputed the collapse theory. People question OKC due to the positioning of the truck, the weight of the explosive in comparison to the damage it caused etc. Watch media coverage of Sandy Hook and the numerous inaccuracies that were presented throughout. Attacking the restaurant itself, was mainly 4chan which Infowars picked up and then dropped. The reality of pedophilia amongst elite groups is something that is usually covered up (BBC as an example) and never touched by the media.
I agree, that he jumps the gun on occasion. To make an educated opinion one must watch an entire clip and not a snippet. They do back up a lot of claims with facts such as those on Geo-Engineering and chemicals changing frogs. Not to mention they were pioneers in exposing how Bisphenol-A was a hormone disruptor. They’re a reliable source 70% of the time, which is much more accurate than a lot of mainstream news. Personally I prefer Drudge.