By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Alex Jones Claims Psychosis Made Him Believe SAndy Hook Shooting Was Staged

collint0101 on 30 March 2019
Snoopy said:
collint0101 said:

It is an organized political debate, like there was legitimately a televised debate between the head of the NRA and gun rights advocates after parkland. This is just a dishonest deflection tactic. Tragedy is a call for action, a reason to have these conversations. If we just bury our heads in the sand and wait for some kind of grace period we're just running the clock until the next big shooting. 

No, it isn't a debate when you only hear one side of the story from mainstream media. Liberals are typically the ones burying their heads in the sand. That or they like to shut people down from speaking completely.

You're saying this in a country where new gun laws haven't been passed. Conservatives are really starting to piss me off with this "we're repressed" bs. We know Trump's opinion on this, we know the nra's opinion, fox news is both conservative and the most watched cable news Network, then there's a whole myriad of conservative channels on YouTube. Your opinion isn't being shut down just because you hear the liberal standpoint on this more often. You're going to hear the liberal standpoint more often simply because it's the standpoint that's counter to the current status quo. Just like you hear about pro life advocates way more often than pro choice because when you go against the status quo that instantly makes you way louder than the people that are fine with the current way of doing things. 



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 30 March 2019

Being banned off most major social media platforms must be hurting his bottom line. So this is his way of trying to excuse what he said.



Snoopy on 30 March 2019
collint0101 said:
Snoopy said:

No, it isn't a debate when you only hear one side of the story from mainstream media. Liberals are typically the ones burying their heads in the sand. That or they like to shut people down from speaking completely.

You're saying this in a country where new gun laws haven't been passed. Conservatives are really starting to piss me off with this "we're repressed" bs. We know Trump's opinion on this, we know the nra's opinion, fox news is both conservative and the most watched cable news Network, then there's a whole myriad of conservative channels on YouTube. Your opinion isn't being shut down just because you hear the liberal standpoint on this more often. You're going to hear the liberal standpoint more often simply because it's the standpoint that's counter to the current status quo. Just like you hear about pro life advocates way more often than pro choice because when you go against the status quo that instantly makes you way louder than the people that are fine with the current way of doing things. 

Gee, you are so right. It's not like we had to pass a bill to allow conservative speak on college campus. Or the fact people are trying to get rid of Ben Shapiro or other conservatives on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkUdmy0OZ94

Last edited by Snoopy - on 30 March 2019

Snoopy on 30 March 2019
the-pi-guy said:
Snoopy said:

No, it isn't a debate when you only hear one side of the story from mainstream media. Liberals are typically the ones burying their heads in the sand. That or they like to shut people down from speaking completely.

I agree with this.  

Such a shame that Fox News and company has such control over the dialogue. (Fox News is the mainstream media) .

You're part of the problem. Not even trying to look on both sides of the spectrum. I guess that just you being open-minded.



collint0101 on 30 March 2019
Snoopy said:
collint0101 said:

You're saying this in a country where new gun laws haven't been passed. Conservatives are really starting to piss me off with this "we're repressed" bs. We know Trump's opinion on this, we know the nra's opinion, fox news is both conservative and the most watched cable news Network, then there's a whole myriad of conservative channels on YouTube. Your opinion isn't being shut down just because you hear the liberal standpoint on this more often. You're going to hear the liberal standpoint more often simply because it's the standpoint that's counter to the current status quo. Just like you hear about pro life advocates way more often than pro choice because when you go against the status quo that instantly makes you way louder than the people that are fine with the current way of doing things. 

Gee, you are so right. It's not like we had to pass a bill to allow conservative speak on college campus. Or the fact people are trying to get rid of Ben Shapiro or other conservatives on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkUdmy0OZ94

People have the right to protest against some else's speech, they're both protected by the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech only protects you from violence and the government. As long as your detractors aren't trying to get you arrested or beat up they have every right to complain or even push for privately owned platforms to not host your content. Freedom of speech doesn't just cover the person that's talking it covers everyone's reactions as well. If conservatives don't like that they can talk amongst themselves in private where no one has the opportunity to protest or complain or argue a different point. 



Around the Network
sundin13 on 30 March 2019
Snoopy said:

No, it isn't a debate when you only hear one side of the story from mainstream media. Liberals are typically the ones burying their heads in the sand. That or they like to shut people down from speaking completely.

It seems a little hypocritical for you to slide from discussing how the news media shouldn't talk about gun control in the wake of a shooting to saying that liberals are the ones trying to shut down conversation. This is the cycle of discourse from the right. Avoid the conversation as much as possible by saying "Its too soon to talk about it" until the next shooting and then start over again. You have no ground to be making this argument in the middle of this conversation.



o_O.Q on 30 March 2019
sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

"just loves when he (and InfoWars in general) says that gay people are the result of chemical warfare"

you do understand that atrazine has been shown to have feminisation effects on frogs right? this is what he was referring to

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/

"or when he accuses the LGBTQ community of advocating deviant sexual activities such as having sex with cars"

there are aspects of that community that advocate sex with inanimate objects

what is your problem with people having sex with inanimate objects?

i personally think people should be able to do it with whatever they want once consent is not violated, but supposedly your implied stance here is different, if so why?

"or when he claims that transgender bathroom access is about "jacking with" children"

there are legitimate concerns with regards to this issue

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

the problem is that since this issue is predicated solely on "identity" it can be exploited, do you deny that?

"or when he says that Drag Queens should be burned alive"

"or when he says that gay rights are a pathway to pedophilia"

"when he blames the Pulse Nightclub shooting on the LGBTQ community"

"when he says same sex marriage is invalid"

"when he claims that the only people affected by anti bathroom access bills are "creepy perverts"

i don't see a quote here just assertions

"or when he calls homosexuality a destructive lifestyle"

in what sense? if he's arguing that children are not produced and it could result in population decline if it becomes practiced by the majority then he'd be right

that does not mean that there is anything wrong with the lifestyle just that it does not lead to population growth

"when he uses terms like "cocksucker" or "leather daddy" or "tranny"."

as do most people although i must admit that i've never heard the term leather daddy

Please, double down harder defending Alex Fucking Jones.

Be my guest.

As a bonus, here is a bit from how Alex Jones answers what he thinks about same sex marriage:

"They have a lot of camp followers that are useful idiots that really think, hey, it's my right, when they can go and have contractual, basically relationships that are the same as marriage but not called marriage. So they want to overrun that. It is an aggressive recruiting effort. It is being shoved on 5-year-old school students in the United States. Five-year-olds shouldn't be taught about heterosexual sex or homosexual sex or anything else. So it's the state promoting pedophilia, because they're a bunch of pedophiles. I mean, look at all the pedophile scandals. I mean, it's pedophile scandals in the BBC, in the government, in the churches. Not because there's a lot of pedophiles, but because it's a guild, it's a cult of pedophiles trying to take everything over. That's it. They're on the side of the devil."

"Please, double down harder defending Alex Fucking Jones."

i didn't start this by defending alex jones, i cleared up a misconception that he is against liberal policy, when really alex jones is far more liberal than many of the leftists who criticise him

"Five-year-olds shouldn't be taught about heterosexual sex or homosexual sex or anything else."

you presumably disagree with this, may i ask why?

"So it's the state promoting pedophilia, because they're a bunch of pedophiles."

if people are mandating that children at the age of 5 must be taught about the mechanics of intercourse i'd say that there's something wrong with that in my view

its not explicitly pedophilia but i can understand his line of reasoning for using that word 

i think concern over this for example being pushed on kids is justifiable primarily because the fundamental argument its pushing is just wrong and ironically this premise could be used quite easily to delegitimise gay rights

"I mean, look at all the pedophile scandals. I mean, it's pedophile scandals in the BBC, in the government, in the churches."

he's right about this

jimmy saville ring a bell? joe paterno? the catholic scandals?

"it's a cult of pedophiles trying to take everything over. That's it. They're on the side of the devil."

who is he referring to here? seems to me like he's referring to the people above and again he's right

the catholic church for example appears to be run by pedophiles and they are trying to gain control

you haven't really posted any evidence for your claims so i must conclude that you have none as i suspected

what is a "leather daddy"? btw

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 30 March 2019

o_O.Q on 30 March 2019
collint0101 said:
Snoopy said:

Gee, you are so right. It's not like we had to pass a bill to allow conservative speak on college campus. Or the fact people are trying to get rid of Ben Shapiro or other conservatives on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkUdmy0OZ94

People have the right to protest against some else's speech, they're both protected by the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech only protects you from violence and the government. As long as your detractors aren't trying to get you arrested or beat up they have every right to complain or even push for privately owned platforms to not host your content. Freedom of speech doesn't just cover the person that's talking it covers everyone's reactions as well. If conservatives don't like that they can talk amongst themselves in private where no one has the opportunity to protest or complain or argue a different point. 

"As long as your detractors aren't trying to get you arrested or beat up they have every right to complain or even push for privately owned platforms to not host your content."

lets forget for a second about the leftists going around splitting people's heads open with bike locks

are you ok with leftists shutting down speaking engagements for people with differing views?



Snoopy on 30 March 2019
sundin13 said:
Snoopy said:

No, it isn't a debate when you only hear one side of the story from mainstream media. Liberals are typically the ones burying their heads in the sand. That or they like to shut people down from speaking completely.

It seems a little hypocritical for you to slide from discussing how the news media shouldn't talk about gun control in the wake of a shooting to saying that liberals are the ones trying to shut down conversation. This is the cycle of discourse from the right. Avoid the conversation as much as possible by saying "Its too soon to talk about it" until the next shooting and then start over again. You have no ground to be making this argument in the middle of this conversation.

Nope, because liberals are the main culprit and you know it.



collint0101 on 30 March 2019
o_O.Q said:
collint0101 said:

People have the right to protest against some else's speech, they're both protected by the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech only protects you from violence and the government. As long as your detractors aren't trying to get you arrested or beat up they have every right to complain or even push for privately owned platforms to not host your content. Freedom of speech doesn't just cover the person that's talking it covers everyone's reactions as well. If conservatives don't like that they can talk amongst themselves in private where no one has the opportunity to protest or complain or argue a different point. 

"As long as your detractors aren't trying to get you arrested or beat up they have every right to complain or even push for privately owned platforms to not host your content."

lets forget for a second about the leftists going around splitting people's heads open with bike locks

are you ok with leftists shutting down speaking engagements for people with differing views?

I don't support violence but I am very much so apathetic towards a non violent protest resulting in an event being shut down. It's all free speech in my point of view and with the internet no amount of in person events being shut down can truly silence someone's opinion.