-16 votes

Alex Jones Could Learn A Thing Or Two About Civilized Debate From Ron Paul

(warning: thought provocation area straight ahead)

A lot of people are saying that Alex Jones hurt the liberty movement by the way he acted on the Piers Morgan show when they had their conversation about gun control. I happen to think it was great but a lot of people disagree. They seem to think that confrontations with tyrants like Morgan should be dealt with in a calm and cool manner, and that getting angry is somehow weird or wrong.

As many people know Alex is a big supporter of Ron Paul and has interviewed him many times. Why, then, doesn't Alex look to Ron Paul for inspiration, maintaining his composure and engaging in a more civil discourse like Ron Paul would have done?

See? Ron was able to make his point logically and clearly without upsetting anyone. Loud mouths are for shallow minds, and only polite debate can solve the many problems facing this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q

Now, wasn't that nice? No shouting, no interrupting, no condescension or talking over other people. Yes, Ron Paul is and should be an example to all of us that it is never necessary or appropriate to hoot and holler.

Perhaps next time Alex is in a similar scenario he can behave more like a proper gentleman, but it isn't just Alex Jones who needs these lessons: it is all of us. In any setting or scenario. For example:

-Someone breaks into your house at night. Don't yell and scream! Be nice. Offer them a drink. Ask them nicely not to kill you.

-Your congressman or senator suggests a bill requiring caretakers of children to have video cameras in their home. Don't make a fuss! Calmly and quietly explain to them that you think it's kind of a creepy.

-You come to a highway checkpoint and see U.S. military detaining and searching vehicles. Don't get angry! Don't do it! Hush now, hush. That's better. Be good now. Calm down. Only terrorists get angry at checkpoints. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. This hurts them more than it hurts you. And after all it is only for your own protection. Remain calm, citizen.

I'm certain Ron Paul would agree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY_BO-w5qcY

But if that doesn't convince you, here are a few more people who know that getting angry and getting loud will never get anyone's attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOu-PoT9MDc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There are many of you

who think that Alex was wrong to get in Pier's face the way he did. You think he came off as crazy. It was not the information he provided, but merely the way he delivered it. If you have watched many of the other interviews on Pier's show than you would realize that Alex would not be able to get a word in if he had not spoken the way that he did. Do you realize that this one interview with AJ was the number on Google search for that day? So even the people who didn't tune into the show got to see the exchange on other late night and relevant news shows. These people most likely would not have seen this interview if it was just another boring exchange.

Also, going back to other posts. I also discovered Ron Paul by listening to Alex for over 8 years or so now. There is nothing wrong with him or his show. Every piece of information is linked to the original source and most sources are from the top newspapers and cable news networks. It's just that most of the information is so hard to believe because of how corrupt or tyrannical it is. I can guarantee that I could never see most of this information if it was not compiled for me from all the many sources on a national level and then linked on one page. It's almost the same as going to Drudgereport except for the fact that you have a personality as well as the news.

It's also cool that Drudgreport links to many of infowars articles as well since Drudge pulls in a much larger audience.

Just playing devil's advocate.

...

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

Chris Devilski

How come Ron Paul never talks about Pandas?

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

Not an exact quote

by AJ.... But I remember him saying that if you are okay about yelling and supporting your football team you should have no problem with yelling and supporting freedom. If you don't like Alex, so be it, but the man is passionate about freedom.

Formerly rprevolutionist

I suppose you also think....

that MLK should have thrown a complete hissy fit and started ranting in a paranoid manner at the March on Washington instead of calmly delivering one of the greatest speeches in history?

The "I Have a Dream" speech inspired results and effectively brought an end to the most embarrassing chapter of this nation's history.

Alex Jones' meltdown on CNN brought nothing but derision and scorn while changing nobody's mind.

What's the difference? CIVILITY. ELOQUENCE. TACT.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Sorry People

The nice guy routine isn't going to work. I used to have faith in this "peaceful revolution" too.

What exactly did Ron Paul 2012 accomplish?

From my perspective, it showed us that we have ZERO chance changing anything politically. Any of you who still cling to the idea of "electing freedom-minded representatives" as a form of resistance are completely delusional. Your children are going to wake up one day under the bonds totalitarian world government and wonder why their parents abandoned them to it.

Alex Jones is responding with an amount of ferocity that is tame compared to the level of response these issues deserve. "Civilized Debate"? Oh yes, let me calmly explain why I don't think I should be a slave.

Good luck with that.

You catch more flies with honey.

Screaming and yelling like a two-year-old doesn't endear your cause to anyone and plays right into the hands of trolls like Piers Morgan. Piers WANTED Alex Jones to have a meltdown like he did, because then the left would have more ammo for their fight to smear all 2nd Amendment supporters as mentally unstable, gun-toting lunatics.

A smart debater (like, say, Dr. Paul) would not have given Piers what he wanted, and would have calmly laid out an eloquent defense of the 2nd Amendment. Consequently, Piers would look like the childish brat in that situation, and more people could have been won over to our side.

Frankly, Alex Jones is an embarrassment to the liberty movement. His babyish tirades and willingness to buy any theory no matter how absurd make this movement look like a joke.

I don't play, I commission the league.

1. Alex didn't have a

1. Alex didn't have a meltdown. He merely turned Piers' own tactics against him and controlled the segment, delivering as many facts as possible in the allotted time. He showed passion and conviction, more than we've seen from anyone else on the same platform. He also told the truth, something that the rest of our "allies" have conveniently avoided in order to make themselves seem more palatable to the "flies", as you so eloquently label the human race.

2. Piers did not want Alex to do what he did. Morgan is a narcissist who wanted to "debate" Alex with his logical fallacies. Alex didn't give him the opportunity. I'll say it again... THERE IS NO DEBATE on this issue. We are right, period. Trying to "prove" we are right is meaningless. The agenda will continue either way.

3. Ron Paul would be more successful in debate if he could re-channel some of his 80s fire. I love RP, but the majority of people respond more to passion than to "smart". This is obvious.

4. I'd like to know what "absurd theories" you're referencing. Apparently, showing rightful anger over the enslavement of your family, your race, and yourself while reaching out to and enlightening 2-3 million people weekly is being a baby. If Alex is an "embarrassment" to our cause, what exactly are you?

You

do know paul was winning the primary at one point....we weren't that far off of winning that thing...had we another 4 years with Paul in office i'm pretty sure we could have gotten him into the presidency.

Yelling and screaming as far as I'm aware has never influenced someone to change their stance...ever. You read any psychology book about how to influence people or get them to view things from another perspective....and the description is a complete 180 from Alex on Piers.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/14...

Sarcasm?

You do know that Paul did not win.

You do know that Paul never had any chance of winning.

You do know that Paul would have won in a fair election, yet didn't because the entire voting system is rigged and always will be.

No offense intended, but please reevaluate my "delusional" comment and run a cross-check on yourself.

Do you truly believe there is a chance you could "influence" a slavemaster to change their stance on the morality of slave ownership? Don't kid yourself. That's what this is really about.

It is not the time to "win friends and influence people". It is the time to stand up and say NO.

Disagree

completely. You look at this primary season compared to 4 years ago....night and day. We're getting Paul supporters in key areas of the political system around the country...and we're doing it by convincing and influencing people and they're actually voting in our direction to put people in positions of power in the GOP.

What did you think the country would be turned around overnight? 100 years of terribleness and suddenly "poof", it's all restored? That's not how it works.

"It is not the time to "win friends and influence people". It is the time to stand up and say NO."

You can stand up and say no to the politicians....that's different than trying to get people to join the movement. But going on a talk show and raving and ranting like a loon is not a way to get people to join the movement and continue building the influence we're obtaining. Sorry, but the only thing that is going to do is push people away....and every psychologist in the world would side with me on this one.

I can't tell you how many times i saw video clips of Alex the couple weeks after that show aired where people were using it to say "see, look at these nut job pro-gun guys out there...these are the cooks we're up against."

I'm not against Alex...i think he could really help us out because he's a warehouse of information...I'm just against his delivery.

The "political system" is

The "political system" is meaningless. We can't take it over because it doesn't belong to the people. It doesn't even belong to the politicians.

Attempting to get people to join the movement is one thing. I respect that and try to do that myself. However, it was not Alex's intention to "influence" during that interview. He was giving a message.

He provided a severely needed counter-balance compared to everyone else who has discussed our position on a national level: The Truth

"Debating" or "politely discussing" this issue gives credibility to the opposition's argument. It makes it seem as though there is actually something to discuss. That is wrong. We are absolutely right, and we need to have the balls to stand up and say it. Alex did. No one else with that amount of exposure has. He did us a valuable service.

Glad to participate

in this conversation.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

We're just going to have

to agree to disagree on Alex.

I just watched the tonight show from last night....Piers was on. What did they play? A clip of Alex in his crazy rant and everyone in the audience was laughing because it looks completely ridiculous to the average person.

I think us here at DP are immersed in these topics for years....while the average person goes to work and comes home and watches American Idol...they aren't immersed in it. So when our years of being immersed in this stuff bubbles up and we explode like alex did....it just looks crazy to those "regular" americans.

Are you really using the

Are you really using the opinion of "regular" Americans as an argument?

These poor people are brainwashed and always will be. The government could come and put them into a dungeon and they would cling to the belief that there "must be a good reason" for it. They aren't going to change their highly controlled minds simply because someone is "polite". In fact, a little genuine fury might serve to shock some of them out of their stupor.

Any person paying attention who has the capacity for logical thought understands what is happening. They see Piers & Co. laughing about killing Alex Jones with an assault rifle and understand who is truly "crazy".

.

"Are you really using the opinion of "regular" Americans as an argument?"

yes...aren't these the people we're trying to convince? 90% of the people out there i'd lump into the "regular" americans that don't dig into stuff like us. We need numbers...where do you go for them? Where 90% of the population resides.

Can you not recognize the

Can you not recognize the fallacy of your argument?

You say that we should mold our discourse to fit a flawed concept of reality, the "opinion" of "regular" Americans.

Their "opinion" is that the threat of tyranny in our government is a myth. Their "opinion" is that the Constitution is a mysterious, outdated relic. Their "opinion" is that those who ask questions are crazy and offensive.

To respect these "opinions" would be to disrespect those whom we hope to guide as well as ourselves. We should NEVER let the opinions (brainwashing) of others influence our own quest for the truth and the methods by which we choose to disseminate it.

The TRUTH has power. Spread it far and wide. Those who are receptive to reason will find it. Most will not. That is life.

You said

"Their "opinion" is that the threat of tyranny in our government is a myth. Their "opinion" is that the Constitution is a mysterious, outdated relic. Their "opinion" is that those who ask questions are crazy and offensive."

Exactly...so it's on us to convince them that if you look at the historical facts they are dead wrong. My argument is you're never going to convince them by acting like Alex on Piers. And we DO need to convince them.....we need the numbers. Yelling and screaming and acting like a lunatic does not convince people...it deters them.

It's a before vs after thing...

'Regular' people may think AJ was over the top right now.

But then it will happen to them or someone they know.

At which point they will remember this interview and think 'wow, that guy was right after all.'

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

This^

This^

When

did Ron Pauls message pull in mass amounts of people? A few decades after these video clips. How many of these audience members look like they're changing their views to fall in line with Ron Paul in these clips? Not many from what I see...that's what you should be picturing with the audience members at home when alex goes on his tirades.

Lets look at clips that propelled Paul and really made him a household name:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH3GO-XWGws

Notice the difference? Sound logical arguments delivered in a calm fashion that persuades people to look into your argument.

I'm not against Alex...i'm against his delivery. It is no doubt hurting pulling in more people to the movement. All it does is reaffirm all of our views, while deterring anyone who might have had somewhat of an open mind about the topic.

There would be no Ron Paul had it not been for Alex Jones

I don't know how to quite say this except to say that for tens of thousands of patriots today, there would be no Ron Paul had it not been for Alex Jones. It was Alex Jones who pushed Ron Paul to run for President in 08 and in 12. It was Alex Jones' audience who by in large donated to the "Money Bomb" for Ron Paul.

Why do so many of you shallow thinking people feel you have to put Alex Jones down in order to make some sort of silly point. Alex is not perfect, he has admitted that himself, but he is real and he is not fake. People like you are looking for Jesus Christ when in reality there is only one Jesus and Alex is not him nor are you.

You would serve yourself more by not trying to demonize one of the greatest liberty minded people this Country has had since Charles Lindbergh. Do less is best in your book but give it your all is what template Alex Jones is on.

and it was Dr.Paul who was pushing for truth

in government before Alex learned what the term fascist meant.

They both stand on their own in the Liberty movement and the idea that we needed them or we wouldn't be here today is preposterous. Each of them has played their own roles as with many others.. If it wasn't them in the spotlight, rest assured it would have been someone else. The idea of Liberty's rebirth because of tyranny was inevitable.

How exactly that would have played out in the present without those two is pure speculation though.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

oh man

really??? No Ron Paul without Alex?

Seriously this site is becoming Daily Alex.

Don't be silly.. both of you.

It's silly to say "There would be no RP without Alex" just as it's silly to say "Seriously this site is becoming Daily Alex."

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Backwards.

AJ may have pushed RP to run, but that is because RP had been doing his thing for years by then. Decades, actually. AJ was just another local "shock jock" until RP gave HIM exposure. I won't deny they both have helped each other, but if AJ had not had RP to push, AJ would still be relatively unknown.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

There would have been no Ron Paul if not for Kent Snyder

Kent Snyder (RIP) talked Ron Paul into Running.
The first wave of Ron Paul support came from Aaron Russo (RIP)
I don't know how many folks from AJ have joined the GOP and gone to committee meetings, but from what I see, very few. Many of us are completely turned off to AJ who does us NO favors and undermines our work because AJ is repugnant to those who have better things to do than watch him compete with David Icke. Both have their place, but to give AJ credit.. sorry..

And now AJ is bashing on Rand.. AJ is all about profitting off of paranoia he creates. He may be a leader in the Liberty Movement and one reason many in the GOP stick with the rEVOLution and do not claim to be part of the Loony Liberty Movement.

Are you going to committee meetings? Like 99.9% of AJ audience, I bet you don't and that's not how to win.

Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is....

Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is.... Side issue...The Point is... Side issue.... the Point is....

YAWN!!! can handle him up to the point of the fifth "Side Issue" and the 10th "the point is". That means I turn him off around the first half hour

The Road to Hell is Paved With GOOD Intentions

Piers (the debater) is also Piers (the moderator) at all his debates – which invariably gives Piers (the bad actor) the final advantage on all things debate!

Piers simply "Begs the Question" Ad Infinitum to Ad Nauseam – appealing to the "self evidence" of his circular reasoning that "more bullets means more dead INNOCENT people" rather than "more bullets means more dead CRIMINALS" as his opponents' antithetically point out.

Home invasions (by gangs) and bank heists (by groups) are evidently uncommon where Piers is from and seem outside of his reasoning capacities and awareness. The Police are also unarmed where Piers is from (something else to consider.)

His go-to argument fails a basic smell test.

However, Piers, the famed "Americas Got Talent" judge is also an accomplished bullsh*t artist, topping his rhetorical masterpieces with flare – the Appeal to Extremes: "SHOULD THE GUY BEING MUGGED HAVE SHOT THE PEOPLE MUGGING HIM?" Yes, the mere act of brandishing the weapon wouldn't have sufficed in ending the skirmish non violently. In any universe Piers inhabits the criminals continue to rob you when you pull out a gun. Given such extremes one could effectively argue that if social pariah are also Darwin Award recipients, when confronted with killing devices of varying levels of lethality, thn YES, yes we might be better off without them running amok in the gene pool; along with moral conspirators who defend such criminals instead of their victim(s). That is if one were inclined to make such appeals.

When all else fails Piers simply falls back on a minutia of pre-scripted "Gotcha" Questions (his Alex Trebek gameshow safety blanket shtick) to imply his guest is too incompetent to argue authoritatively on the subject simply because they don't have the answers on cue card like Piers does. He does this with predictable Monty Python-esque pathos while stepping on the replies of his guests when they make points he perhaps doesn't want his audience hearing. This clusterfuck while hilarious makes Piers a dishonest and untrustworthy debate moderator and host. Further, this "Poisoning the Well" strategy should win Piers no brownie points among the audience as the ad hominem appeal is considered the bargain bin of rhetorical appeals – effective only to the casually observing drug user in the audience.

Yes, when threatened by Argumentation-Fu, Piers will effectively drag the guest and argument into the rhetorical gutters, where, most of them seem to finish him off...

The frequency of this rinse wash repeat strategy shows Piers is either incredibly naive with well meaning idealisms or a monomaniacal megalomaniac with an incredible disdain for his audience. After all, Americans don't seem to get why the UK is a gun-free utopia with spikes in stabbing-related crimes. Treating the symptoms instead of the disease is obviously the cure where Piers is from.

Other than that this gun control topic is raising more interesting questions than it cares to answer. Primarily on the effectiveness of such an initiative. Can such a program succeed given the geological; sociological; philosophical differences between the US and UK?

Thoughts, opinions, flames? All welcome.

AJ

Has spent too many years warning about the financial meltdown, imminent social disorder, anarchy etc.

It all gets rather tedious.

He is who he is, and he ain't gonna change anymore than any other media personality.

Well, other than David Icke heh.