Posted on 01/12/2013 9:53:00 AM PST by Mozilla
Radio host and noted conspiracy theorist Alex Jones responded to Glenn Beck’s criticisms on HuffPost Live Friday, saying he is a “despicable person” like Piers Morgan who thinks his audience is “stupid” and has no ideological consistency.
With his sights set on Beck, Jones argued that he had promoted torture and “taken all the stuff” he has written and “neo-con’d it” only to release it later under his name.
“So he’s mad that I’m getting on hundreds of stations. He’s mad I’m getting attention. I’m not here trying to be numero uno like Glenn Beck; I’m here trying to save our Bill of Rights and Constitution,” Jones said.
Jones also found a conspiracy within Beck’s libertarian views. He said Beck only became a libertarian because he “knows the Republican Party is dying,” and because “most Americans call themselves libertarians,” he wants to “brand it so that he’s the leader and he’s the head of libertarians.”
“It’s Glenn Beck that has promoted torture,” Jones continued...
Later in the HuffPost Live interview, Jones began screaming after getting a little too “fired up about liberty.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
you’re a coward and a disgusting puke that cheers for murderous jackbooted thugs that kill American citizens...and you’re such a vile low life that you’re just fine with that as you peck away from your mom’s basement... go back to sleep little sheepish twit
ymmv, I knew you’d never post an argument...but are you paid to be a cheerleader for killers, or is it just your hobby?
Ah, some of your true insane beliefs bubble to the surface. Your sick man, your just sick in the head. You need help. Why don't you tell us specifically who you think is behind 9-11, how WT7 fell and who the "jackbooted" thugs you refer to are? Specifics please.
and you’re such a vile low life that you’re just fine with that
You do realize that most rational people believe truthers like you are just simply disgusting. I mean, come on, how can you be a truther? Only total nuts, usually on the left, buy into that crazy nonsense.
but are you paid to be a cheerleader for killers, or is it just your hobby?
More whackadoodle nonsense. Tell me specifically who the "killers" you are referring to are?
My point was that it was not necessary to accuse Longbow1969 of lack of religion in order to disagree with him. I wound up favoring Santorum but could easily have supported Gingrich or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or any number of other individuals who did not run whether that individual was Roman Catholic or not. At various points, I did support each of those candidates. My criterion was the quality of conservatism of a candidate and particularly social conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, reliable support for gun rights and such issues. On that basis, Mitt(ler) Romney, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul were flat out unacceptable and that had nothing to do with the religion of any one of them.
That having been said, yes, really: We NEED to purge the GOP-E before we can speak relevantly or coherently against the Demonrats. One would think that after the 2012 massacre of spineless Mittler, it would be a unanimous opinion here (or close to it) that the GOP-E walk the plank politically and that we recapture our party before we worry about recapturing the nation. Our efforts are also not helped by spineless wonders like Obama-suckup Colin Powell, Weepy John Boehner, Two-faced Eric Cantor, Pseudo-pragmatist Kevin McCarthy, Mindless Mitch McConnell, that Establishment whore from Texas John Cornyn and a substantial number of other useless GOP-E elected officials and those who finance their purchase of nominations to comfort mindless little Muffy and Skipper and protect their trust funds above all else.
REALLY!!!
High Fives!
Hi BlackElk.
Establishments come and go. If the Tea Party took over the GOP, it would have its own establishment that would become static and attempt to hold on to power at all costs. There is no avoiding that. Being against the "establishment" isn't going to matter if we don't have some new movement that really unifies the right and can take over and become the new "establishment".
The big problem on the right at the moment is how fractured conservatives are. There is a big schism forming between conservatives who don't want to give up the social issues, and the younger generations of conservatives who are far more libertine and don't care about stuff like gay marriage and don't support social order laws. Younger people have always tended to be more liberal, but right now the Republican party is perceived as so out of touch they won't even consider it. Minorities too see the Republican party as something that they have nothing in common with.
I think the future of the GOP is probably more in the libertarian(ish) direction. I don't like Wrong Paul, but I think his "liberty" movement is something to pay attention to. I think you saw people like Sarah Palin repeatedly compliment Paul and say conservatives need to take him seriously and think about what he is saying. On foreign policy and defense, Paul is woefully naive in my view. He also attracts the nutty conspiracy types since he won't disown those people, and that makes him pretty unacceptable as well. Saying that though, his domestic/economic message is good solid conservative/libertarian stuff that paired with opposition to the drug war and some of his other themes might really resonate.
I think traditional movement conservatives and new and growing generations of libertarianish conservatives are going to have to find a way to unite. I suspect that means less focus on social issues, drop the libertarian isolationist stuff, and really unite on the rest of the domestic policy where we already agree. If we do that we can actually stand for something big, exciting and different enough to break the mold Republicans find themselves cast in.
>>LOL, you’re such a clown dude. Now run along and obsess about water fluoridation or maybe the Bilderberg Group <<
I’m not running anywhere sweetie. I’ll always be here to remind you of this.
ILS21R: “So... Do you believe President Obama has committed treason and should be impeached. Yes or No?”
Longbow1969: “Not that I’m aware of.”
Now get back to your circlejerk with your lib troll friends.
You continue to sound like a deranged loon.
There is nothing in the public domain that suggests Obama has committed treason as defined by law. Maybe he’s committed crimes we don’t know about yet, but nothing that I am aware of. Now sure, if you listen to a nutter like Alex Jones you’d believe Obama is part of some “globalist” conspiracy trying to prop up fiat currency to benefit the Bilderberg Group. In reality Hussein is just a terrible President pushing the country in a secular socialist direction.
Oh wait, you’re probably a birther too and believe the birth certificate is an elaborate forgery.
Sorry chief, but no matter how much you claim you’re winning, the truth is you’ve done nothing but change the subject and prove that you’re a sick, twisted conspiracy loon. Get help man.
>>There is nothing in the public domain that suggests Obama has committed treason as defined by law.<<
Idiot. Obama has committed treason.
Obama’s Acts of Treason:
1. Perpetrating acts of fraud, perjury and conspiracy in his refusal to confirm his lawful eligibility to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, constituting impeachable offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors adumbrated in U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4;
2. Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and U.S. Code Title 50, r 33:1541-1548;
3. Accepting foreign title and office while acting as U.S. President and without consulting Congress when in 2009, Obama assumed the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9;
4. Making bribery attempts in word and in deed, as Obama administration offered bribes to at least three Federal candidates for office: Joe Sestak, Andrew Romanoff and Jim Matheson, in violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 201;
5. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to halt the unconstitutional implementation of the “Patient Healthcare and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly known as “ObamaCare”, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;
6. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to grant lawful deep water drilling permits, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;
7. Executive Branch creation and implementation of regulations asserting unconstitutional force of Federal law on matters explicitly rejected by or contrary to the will and intent of Congress, specifically the EPA implementation of Cap and Trade, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 1 and Section 8;
8. Refusing to secure our broken borders from illegal alien invasion, international criminal incursion, and terrorist cadre penetration, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 and Article IV, Section 4;
9. Executive Branch malfeasance and impeding the administration of justice by preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from investigating crimes committed for the direct benefit of the President by presidential associates including: voter intimidation at the hands of the New Black Panthers and ACORN election fraud, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and U.S. Criminal Code Section 135, (Comp. St. § 10305);
10. Direct mobilizing and funding of mob violence, sedition and insurrection, as witnessed in Wisconsin, by the President’s own reelection campaign group Organizing for America, and including open statements of incitement to the insurrection by the President himself, in violation of U.S.Penal Code, Chapter 115, Section 2383;
11. Executive Branch usurpation of lawmaking powers voiding duly enacted legislation of Congress by improperly preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from defending established Federal law – specifically the Defense of Marriage Act, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3;
12. Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow of the United States Constitution; including but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dalia Mogahed, Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385.
And there is more. You’re just afraid to look.
Obama has committed treason. That is a fact.... lib troll.
Dude, this is conspiracy theory drivel. I mean, you’re completely off your rocker if you think any of this is real stuff you could pursue treason charges with. Man, every time you post something new I see how deep into lunacy you’ve sunk. You’re not just a conspiracy theorist, you’re really hardcore about it. No wonder you’re a fan of Alex Jones.
Why don’t you pick post# 69 apart line by line?
This list has been floating around for months and it’s a big pile of stupid. Whoever actually made it, presumably Bruce Eden (?) according to Google, looks like an amateur lawyer who doesn’t understand that courts rule against administrations all the time - it doesn’t make it treason. Administrations fight with courts, sometimes defy them if the case is being heard in another circuit or at higher level - again, that doesn’t make it treason. Heck this one blurb about the borders could apply to any administration - they all say they are doing their best and anyone can say they aren’t. I mean, this isn’t serious stuff. Come on, the left drew up silly lists like this claiming Bush was a traitor too. This is just goofy stuff.
I mean it’s possible Obama has actually done something that really does meet the definition of treason, but if he has it isn’t in the public sphere yet. The bar is really, really high to charge someone with treason, and this list certainly doesn’t even come close to cutting it.
He has clearly given aid and comfort to the enemy by supporting the muslim brotherhood (lowercase intentional) both internationally and in our own Whitehouse.
>>This list has been floating around for months and it’s a big pile of stupid.<<
LOL.... keep digging lib troll.
Come on, be serious here. Don't add another silly voice to this thread. The couple conspiracy theorists in this thread are ridiculous enough.
I don't agree with Obama's disturbingly enthusiastic support of the Muslim Brotherhood either, but those are policy differences. That's not treason, it's just bad decision making. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in our government who, mistakenly in my view, think we can do work with the Muslim Brotherhood. Heck, the Bush administration played patty-cake with some of these Islamist types too in the hopes of finding some "moderate" ones. That's just not treason.
So you got nothing then.
Dude, you don't even understand the difference between something being potentially impeachable, and something being treasonous.
I'm not surprised your such a dim bulb though, most of the Alex Jones conspiracy types are pretty slow. It's just easier for you to belief conspiracies than accept that not everything will fit nicely into your worldview. Conspiracy theorists like you take the intellectually lazy way out, and that makes them mentally dull. It really shows in your posts.
That is a matter of opinion and we disagree.
Obama is trying to undermine the Second Amendment yet is giving millions of dollars in weapons to our enemies. Enemies who have sworn to destroy both the US and Israel.
In my opinion this is nothing short of treason.
No, it is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of law, very specific law in fact.
Obama is trying to undermine the Second Amendment yet is giving millions of dollars in weapons to our enemies.
That's bad policy, it isn't treason. Lots of Presidents have tried to limit the second amendment, the courts either rule those policies constitutional or not. That's not treason. Lots of Presidents give aid, usually legislatively authorized, to countries such as Pakistan who are really probably our enemies. Again, that's policy - not treason. Most of the time that money is authorized by Congress anyway.
And it's not millions to Egypt, it's billions. About 2 billion a year, with 1.3 billion being military aid. Again though, that's policy. That isn't even especially controversial policy at this point. It's a continuation of the same policy that has been in effect for a very long time. The Congress, including Republicans in the House, are going to fund this very policy. Are they are all treasonous? Are all the House Republicans treasonous? You see what I mean? These are policy differences, it isn't treason.
Alex Jones is a sheister who caters to truther nuts. Much more lucrative.
>>So you got nothing then.<<
I just gave you a list of 12 acts of treason committed by President Obama.
You’re the one nothing lib troll... keep digging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.