goguns:

freexcitizen:

sugashane:

Ben Shapiro destroys Piers Morgan and his opinion on guns. 

Being Armenian, Jewish, Bosnian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish, Russian, or any other race that’s been the victim of their own government, you know better than Piers Morgan that governments are capable of heinous, disgusting, illogical crimes against humanity and often times there is no warning until the moment they strip the citizens of their arms. 

What this idiot doesn’t understand, and it’s probably due to the fact that the Brits for the majority of history have been the oppressors and not the oppressed, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and never underestimate the stupidity and evil that can arise when people get together in organized group that thirst for power. 

Why do we have the second amendment? To ensure that the likelihood of democide occurring in this country is very, very low. 

Watch, share, enjoy. 

- Sha

Government tyranny doesn’t exist in the United States there peirs?

Kent State
Occupy Wall street
Shermans march through the south
Roosevelt’s concentration camps
The repeated genocides against th American Indians
Lincoln arresting anti draft and anti war protesters

There’s probably a million more that I can’t think of right now.

Federal Reserve stealing your money through inflation

FedGov stealing your money through taxation

NDAA

PATRIOT Act

DHS

TSA touching your wife/children’s genitals

The list goes on…

All valid points. 

(via libertyandfitnessforall)

Ben Shapiro destroys Piers Morgan and his opinion on guns. 

Being Armenian, Jewish, Bosnian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish, Russian, or any other race that’s been the victim of their own government, you know better than Piers Morgan that governments are capable of heinous, disgusting, illogical crimes against humanity and often times there is no warning until the moment they strip the citizens of their arms. 

What this idiot doesn’t understand, and it’s probably due to the fact that the Brits for the majority of history have been the oppressors and not the oppressed, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and never underestimate the stupidity and evil that can arise when people get together in organized group that thirst for power. 

Why do we have the second amendment? To ensure that the likelihood of democide occurring in this country is very, very low. 

Watch, share, enjoy. 

- Sha

I don’t care for Alex Jones and I read a lot of people completely split on how Alex represented the “liberty” movement on television last night. So I watched the entire interview and I have one thing to say:

THIS IS HILARIOUS! 

Alex is on master-troll level through the entire interview. 

Honestly, just watching Alex, his whole goal seems to be to get in as many words as possible and do to Piers what he does to most guests he doesn’t agree with. He tries to get in as many Google searches that he can while he has the audience of millions of people who have never heard of anything he has said. 

Jones is nuts, but a lot of the governments “black ops” are very real, as FOIA documents have proven over and over again. But the majority of CNN viewers are sheltered to these facts. Chances are that most of Piers daily audience wasn’t going to give Alex Jones or even libertarianism the time of day even before Jones went nuclear on CNN. However, if Alex got even one person to google and learn something new about how evil the government is or how beautiful liberty is, he was a success. 

Alex is not very well spoken and his temper always gets the best of him. Perhaps if he was eloquent with his words, we’d all be better off, but he is. I also think that it doesn’t matter. Ron Paul is a fantastic speaker and never loses his cool and Piers audience demographic still laugh him off the stage. The sad truth is the messenger doesn’t matter to most because they’ve predetermined their stance on the message before they even hear it. Even if Alex was on his best behavior, most viewers would still have a negative opinion of him and his message. The delivery, therefore, is a moot point. The real goal was to get in as many search terms as fast as possible and to try to get even just one viewer to convert. 

Once you are spiritually aligned with the liberty movement, you don’t really care who else claims to be a part of it. This isn’t a fashion show for most. There’s a lot of in-fighting between libertarians and a lot of people think a lot of others are clueless or even dangerous and yet we all stick to the philosophy for one reason: it makes sense. 

If this was some fashion cult of political ideologies, you’d see people come and go. You’d see people say that “oh, I used to ascribe to the libertarian philosophy  but I’m over that”.

I’ve never met an ex-libertarian. 

Liberty and freedom are notions that stick. They infuse themselves into your cells. Once you are liberated, you would sooner lose your life than your convictions.

I’ll still never watch Alex Jones, at least not seriously, but I’m glad he did what he did. We’re all better off for it. 

- Sha (I can’t believe I just defended Alex freaking Jones)

jayrosen:

Should bullshit be called out on air, or would that be “unprofessional? Touré battles Piers Morgan.

That divide isn’t going away. Rarely does it bust into prime-time network television. Rarely do we see anything this raw.

I’m not behind everything Touré says here. If you watch the interview they’re arguing about—Piers Morgan questioning Robert Zimmerman, George Zimmerman’s brother—it’s not nearly as lame as Touré paints it. And I don’t think it’s wise for Touré to rave on about Morgan’s inability to understand America because Piers has been here only a few years. Sometimes outsiders and newcomers see us better.

But… There is a big question on the broadcast journalism table. It involves what a television interviewer should do when he simply doesn’t believe what a guest has just said. Piers Morgan thinks he should ask skeptical questions and let that stand as his “statement.” Touré thinks that’s not good enough. A more direct confrontation is required. (See the Twitter war they had preceding the interview.)

For a long time the journalism world was sold on Morgan’s view. But I don’t think that’s true any more. Views on what counts as “professional” can shift. (See this and this.) It’s conceivable to me that letting a guest make wildly implausible claims will one day fail the Serious Broadcaster test. A good portion of the viewership already expects better, and some of the most careful watchers of the Daily Show’s send-ups are journalists.

Piers Morgan keeps telling Touré that at no point did he signal to us that he believed Robert Zimmerman. To him that means he’s off the hook. But that’s an old hook. The new one is when to tell the audience that this guest cannot be believed.

If I had a prime time show, that would keep me up at night.

(via soupsoup)