Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Piers Morgan Third Segment With Alex Jones Was Cancelled

Alex Jones is reporting that a third segment on Piers Morgan's CNN show was scheduled, where he was to debate Alan Dershowitz. That segment was cancelled.

Jones reports that after the second segment, the producer of the show came out of the back room crying and she said, "It wasn't supposed to be like this."

He also reported that he was tailed by NYC undercover police while he was in the city.

Here's Dershowitz, unchallenged by Jones, attempting to smear Jones, claiming Jones was lying  about the FBI data. Here's the data. Dershowitz then goes from absurd to ludicrous claiming that Jones is the type of guy that would pull a gun during an argument and start shooting.

39 comments:

  1. To Jones' point about the 2nd Amendment having been put in place to provide citizens a means of defense against the state, here's an Al Jazeera piece on the increasingly militarized US police forces. http://youtu.be/2-1JkrAVYSg

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whereas Dershowitz is the type of guy who would have someone else do the shooting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Enough of that maniac (Jones)... he was so uncivilized, childish, and he embarrased the movement and ideas with his behavior.. let's deport him!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex Jones knew that CNN was setting him up to discredit him. He took control of the conversation and got some very important information out in the debate. If you had half a brain you would look at the information he presented for yourself.

      Delete
    2. you are obivously one of the uninformed. Alex Jones knew that he was there to be discredited by CNN. Did you bother to look at any of the information Alex brought up?
      Right on Alex Jones!!!!

      Delete
  4. Alex is a much more talented entertainer than either morgan or dershowicz. when he came out guns blazin i think they decided to cower. are you surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jones was a disgrace, plain and simple. He fed into every stereotype of the conspiracy theory nut, leaving many legitimate arguments he was raising in between his tirades as forgettable through his unhinged delivery. It was despicable. Before last night I thought it would be impossible to make Piers appear to be sane and agreeable. And Piers was lobbing softballs that could have been easily refuted and smacked down. Opportunity lost. I don't blame them for not doing the 3rd segment. In fact, I'm surprised they allowed the 2nd segment. Watch Jones and then watch Larry Pratt's interview. Tell me which was more productive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Mike T, I disagree. Listen to Piers' questions. Minutiae after minutiae to "prove" that guns are bad and gun control works. Do you think he would've honestly given Alex any chance to answer anything other than "yes" or "no" or some other single word answer if he had answered respectfully? No, it would've been an ambush, and Alex knew it. He was brilliant. He just went out guns blazing. So what if some, or even a lot, of it sounded crazy. He had a chance to get the message, however fevered it sounded, out to a very big audience that would otherwise never hear it. The false English accent part was hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Do you think he would've honestly given Alex any chance to answer anything other than "yes" or "no" or some other single word answer if he had answered respectfully?"
      >> Did you watch Larry Pratt's interview with Piers? By the end, he had Piers resorting to silly name-calling and ad hominem. He completely embarassed Piers with a calm, collected, reasonable defense of gun ownership and Piers had no logical response. In my opinion, that is much more productive than coming off as a raving lunatic.


      "No, it would've been an ambush, and Alex knew it"
      >> It would only be an ambush if Alex didn't have a sensible argument, which he did, but just delivered it like a maniac. The message gets lost that way.


      "He was brilliant."
      >> Sorry, I can't agree. The other part that bothered me was when Piers kept bring up the lower "gun murders" in the UK. And Alex initially answered it correctly with the higher "violent crime" rate, but when Piers kept bringing it back up, he kept whining about Piers presenting these little "factoids" (well, isn't that what Alex was doing?), instead of hammering home the point that when people are not armed, violent crime rises. Then you easily segue into an argument that backs Piers into a corner by getting him to identify what exactly is the problem he's trying to solve - lowering violent crime or lowering gun crime. By addressing the latter with stricter gun control, you increase the former. How would Piers defend that? Particularly, when violent crime rates in the US are much lower with less strict gun laws.


      "So what if some, or even a lot, of it sounded crazy."
      >> It depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to win hearts and minds, then it matters a lot, because it was an epic fail. Nobody on the other side of the argument is going to take him seriously after that. And there are even those who are sympathetic to much of what he says who will want to distance themselves from him.

      "He had a chance to get the message, however fevered it sounded, out to a very big audience that would otherwise never hear it."
      >> In my opinion, delivering it in a thoughtful, reasonable, respectful manner is a much more productive way to deliver the message. Let the other side become unhinged. Again, see Larry Pratt's interview with Piers for a perfect example of this.

      Delete
    2. So Morgan, the uber statist who wants to disarm all Americans, sounds sane to you, but the guy who you agree had sensible arguments sounds insane? Sounds like you too concerned with style over substance. Don't worry, Alex's interview doesn't eliminate Pratt's.

      Delete
    3. "Did you watch Larry Pratt's interview with Piers? In my opinion, that is much more productive than coming off as a raving lunatic."

      It is? Do you have any statistics on how many minds Larry Pratt has changed?


      "If your goal is to win hearts and minds, then it matters a lot, because it was an epic fail."

      Again, do you have any stats on how many hearts and minds Pratt and Alex Jones have changed? You keep saying Pratt's tactic works and Alex Jones' doesn't, but you're just making assertions. Do you honestly think anybody that is pro-gun control gives a hoot HOW someone presents arguments he honestly doesn't care about? If gun controllers listened to reason, they wouldn't be gun controllers.


      "And there are even those who are sympathetic to much of what he says who will want to distance themselves from him."

      That is *their* weakness and lack of spine. This "higher ground" nonsense has most likely never changed anyone's mind.


      "In my opinion, delivering it in a thoughtful, reasonable, respectful manner is a much more productive way to deliver the message. Let the other side become unhinged. Again, see Larry Pratt's interview with Piers for a perfect example of this."

      Again, you've offered no proof Pratt's way of doing things has made any more of a dent in the opposite side's armor than Alex Jones' way.
      Are you in any way swayed by a gun controller's reasonable, calm demeanor as he wants to take your rights sway? Why should it work the other way around?
      Sure, gun controllers may call Pratt a gentleman. WHO CARES?

      Delete
    4. "Sounds like you too concerned with style over substance."
      >> Yes, when the style distracts from the substance. I'll give you a good example. In my opinion, the most destructive and dangerous group of people are the neoconservatives. But have you ever noticed how they deliver their message? It's not like some raving lunatic (even though the message is pure lunacy). It's always a calm, collected delivery (eg Kristol, Krauthammer, etc). They always *appear* to be comfortable delivering their message with confidence. I believe that's one of the reasons many that are politically right of center fall into the trap of settling for that nonsense. Hell, even those left of center have fallen for it with Obama in office.

      On the other hand, Jones came away as a raving, paranoid lunatic. And I'm saying that as someone who despises Morgan's worldview and agrees with much of Jones' message. A message is just as important *how* it's delivered as to *what* the message entails. Perception is critical. He's only appealing to the converted. I was cringing through most of that interview. Not because of *what* Jones was saying, but *how* most of the general public would perceive it. Do you honestly think Jones convinced anyone outside those who already know him? I certainly don't think so. At least with Pratt's, he'll make the opposition think about their argument. And in my opinion, that's why Piers resorted to ad hominem when he couldn't or wouldn't make a rational counter argument. To a neutral observer, who is going to come across as more convincing in an argument - the one who is composed or the one who loses their composure?

      Delete
    5. it's about delivery cotterdan321. if people dismiss him as a raving lunatic because he was getting worked up, shouting, jumping from topic to topic then he's failed to deliver those sane arguments to most normal people, especially those that don't know of him.

      Delete
    6. Tony,

      I don't have proof and never claimed to have proof, which is why I predicated those remarks with "in my opinion."


      "That is *their* weakness and lack of spine."
      >> Not necessarily. Jones came off as a rude, obnoxious, bloviating maniac. And I say that as someone who agrees with much of what he said and consider Piers' worldview horrific.

      "This "higher ground" nonsense has most likely never changed anyone's mind."
      >> Perhaps, but at least you'll have a better chance of being taken seriously and not dismissed outright.

      "Are you in any way swayed by a gun controller's reasonable, calm demeanor as he wants to take your rights sway? Why should it work the other way around?"
      >> Not to get too off topic here, but if you lined up 100 liberal leaning people and started rattling off actions or policies supported by Obama (eg drone wars, domestic spying, extrajudicial indefinite detainment, assassinations, etc) without mentioning Obama's name, how many would raise their hand in support? How many would shake their head in disgust? I'm sure you'd agree most, if not all, would fall into the latter category. And yet, people still support him. Now, maybe most people are either flat out dumb or blind political partisans, but you don't think at least some of that is how Obama comes across as a smooth cat? Some people can just sell. Clinton was even better. All I'm saying is I'd personally feel better with the same type of salesman as these clowns, rather than a ranting and raving maniac, delivering the right message. I honestly don't see how that is even controversial.


      Regardless, I know there are a lot of libertarians that agree on just about everything except when it comes to tactics. And I suppose this is once of those disagreements. And to reiterate, those are my "opinions," not verifiable facts.

      Delete
    7. So Mike, do you think Bill O'Reilly is hurting the neocon movement? I don't see fewer people becoming neocons because of his rude, obnoxious behavior.

      These MSM shows aren't about changing minds. They are about reinforcing views that people already hold. I'm tired of people treating these asshats like Morgan with respect. He's pushing an agenda that has led to millions of deaths by tyrannical governments. I enjoyed watching that douchebag being told off.

      Hopefully people are talking about this interview and libertarians are defending the substance of what Jones had to say. It is our job to convince our friends and family of the merits of our ideas. It's Alex Jone's job to get the conversation started, and it looks like he succeeded.

      Delete
    8. cotterdan321,

      "do you think Bill O'Reilly is hurting the neocon movement?"
      >> O'Reilly may be obnoxious and shameless, but I still think Jones' delivery was way further over the top than what O'Reilly routinely displays. The other thing that shouldn't be discounted here that probably renders my example less credible is that it's always much easier to convince people to become more loyal to the state than to become more resistant.

      "They are about reinforcing views that people already hold."
      >> And they present opportunities for those who are fortunate enough to address that audience with an alternative point of view.

      "I'm tired of people treating these asshats like Morgan with respect."
      >> It's not about treating Morgan with respect. It's about respecting the audience and ideas.

      "I enjoyed watching that douchebag being told off."
      >> Fair enough. I see I'm probably outnumbered on here, but in my opinion, I enjoyed Pratt's takedown MUCH more than Jones.

      "It is our job to convince our friends and family of the merits of our ideas. It's Alex Jone's job to get the conversation started, and it looks like he succeeded."
      >> Fair point.

      Delete
  7. Alex possibly would. He's an out of control freak.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Surprise. When you act like a lunatic your time gets cut short.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless the lunatic is the host.

      Delete
  9. Arthur Krolman, CFAJanuary 8, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    "(Alex Jones is) the type of guy that would pull a gun during an argument and start shooting."

    I think poor old Dershowitz's eyesight is failing him. It was George Bush that pulled a gun and started shooting. And it was actually when two other guys were having an argument (King of Iraq and King of Kuwait).

    Maybe CNN should be talking about disarming governments? Oops, silly me. CNN loves government violence. Remember how Eason Jordan admitted they helped Sadam lie so he wouldn't close their bureau in Baghdad?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, Alex was over the top but, can you blame him?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jones did an awesome job. We need people like Jones and Pratt. Jones didn't walk in there looking for a debate; he was looking for a fight and I'm perfectly ok with that.

    He did to Moron what Moron does to others which is run right over the top of them, interrupt and mock them. Good for Jones.

    There is plenty of room in the liberty movement for calm, reasonable people like Pratt and loudmouthed, obnoxious guys like Jones.

    And how exactly was Pratt productive? Did he convince anyone? Not likely? As great as he did with Morgan, I'm not sure he was productive.

    But Jones got angry and rightfully so and hopefully energized some people who are lukewarm gun owners to what's coming. Maybe he gave them some resolve.

    I bet there were a lot of "HELL YEAH!" shouts at the tv when Jones was going off. That could be very productive.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not a Jones fan but I thought he did a good job. You can't win with these people so I like his strategy of guns blazing and threw everything at Morgan. It is likely some people woke up and started to ask some serious questions. That's all you can ask for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dershowitz is a rabid supporter of Israel especially because the Israelis have given up all their weapons of whatever variety and, of course, never use them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No doubt Alex knew exactly what he was doing. I saw his appearance on The View (no kidding) and was astounded at how calm and pleasant his manner was, even talking about tough issues. Obviously a jab at Piers' own nasty tactics. And frankly I had never heard of the Pratt interview before this one broke out.

    Why do people think tactics must be so monolithic? I've convinced many people using slow deliberative arguments sure, but just as many with much cruder/shorter language and analogies. Only a handful of the most querelous (in our own ranks no less!) could be so deeply offended by this. Wipe your hands and move on if its so disagreeable to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who doesn't love being lectured on morality and curbing violence by pricks like Dershowitz who write legalistic BS to justify torture?

    Yeah, that's who we should take our cues from.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jones did his job perfectly: he made all of us that love Liberty look like kooks. He'll be allowed to continue his It's-almost-the-truth franchise and make bank on the suckers that send him money while also fulfilling his incessant need for attention.

    Never trust a man that feels a need to plaster his name everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Disappointed in all these responses which fault Alex Jones for "being over the top".. His is certainly not my own "style", but I would have been sucked into answering Morgan's inane questions as they were presented. Thanks, Alex, for barging right ahead and bringing up issues like false flags, banksters, fast and furious, democide, big pharma,and so on.
    These issues would never have been allowed to be aired if he had not come on CNN with a "guns blazing" mindset.
    For anyone who does not realize the actual situation we are in, it is too late to remain "polite".

    ReplyDelete
  18. I like Alex Jones and I appreciate his efforts greatly. I have full faith that he is genuinely nonviolent, but passionate.

    I think his call for a 2nd American Revolution is a display of that passion and frustration with the status quo. That aside, a second American Revolution is one of the worst things that could happen. I believe a second "1776" is thankfully very unlikely.

    What I do hope for, like Ron Paul, is a peaceful/intellectual American Revolution. War is the worst way to bring peace and liberty. I have my suspicions that it was war, in large part, that enabled the battle-weary new America to move from the Articles of Confederation to the more centralized Constitution; though the Constitution would be an immeasurable improvement from what we have now.

    As many better men than I have said: freedom is in the hearts and minds of the people and rests with their moral virtue. That does not discount their need to be armed. Guns ownership should be as wide as possible. The needs of the people are defensive, not offensive. If they are the sovereigns "We the People," they need the power of purse and sword.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're all a bunch of idiots. This guy was crazy. It's sad that people think like this. He's the reason why we need gun control and better mental healthcare. Why do you need over 50 semi-automatic guns in your house? Isn't one enough to protect you? He gave all gun owners a bad name and image, like that's all they care about are guns. It was just awful. I know gun owners and they don't act like that. Geez.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re the idiot who will be begging to have his arse saved one day.

      Delete
  20. Aside from the gun control debate, this is all about ratings for Piers Morgan, not gun control , and everyone is watching for the next debate. As for me, I'm hoping Larry King comes back with his stupid dress attire. I'm tired of Mr. Morgans anti american slant.Anderson Cooper is just about as bad with his keeping them honest and playing the "monday morning quarterback". CNN is rapidly becoming a network not worth watching if you want unbiased reporting. Why would I want to talk to or watch someone who consistanly rubs me the wrong way! Now I've got to go clean my guns!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Alright, I take it back. Jones knew exactly what he was doing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0sE9hAXXB4&feature=player_embedded#!

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/07/son-of-biden-gun-control-task-force-member-convicted-of-conspiracy-to-commit-school-massacre-n1483006

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/07/son-of-biden-gun-control-task-force-member-convicted-of-conspiracy-to-commit-school-massacre-n1483006

    President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is a member of Vice President Joe Biden's gun control task force, which was created by President Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Nee's son, Joseph Nee, was convicted in 2008 for planning to commit mass murder of students and teachers at Marshfield High School in Massachusetts, similar to that of Columbine in 1999. After spending nine months in prison, Nee's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.

    ReplyDelete