Megyn Kelly VS Alex Jones - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By colliric
#14814147
Personally I can't wait to see this.

Jones admits he lost out to Megyn and the Interview was not as planned.

I guess Megyn needed a comeback after Putin wiped the floor with her, so probably went all guns blazing on Alex.

Can't wait.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 9e0415f403

Looks like neither side is going to win out anyway.... Peers(and Sandy Hook families, and I disagree with Alex on that one, it happened) are boycotting her for simply featuring him.
#14814212
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:How can anybody that believes Sandy Hook is a hoax be a friend of a sitting US president? America is so cynically ironic.


As his statement shows he doesn't believe it's a hoax anymore.
#14814215
As his statement shows he doesn't believe it's a hoax anymore.

Oh. So that's alright then. Is he going to apologise to the grieving families whom his followers have been harassing for the past four years or so? :eh:
#14814220
Why would he apologize? Do his haters apologize to him when they're wrong?

Classy, Igor. :up:

I don't care for Megan smelly.

Why not? She's not brash and offensive enough for you?

I'm waiting for oliver stones Putin interview special.

Yeah, that looks like a good one.
#14814276
Potemkin wrote:Oh. So that's alright then. Is he going to apologise to the grieving families whom his followers have been harassing for the past four years or so? :eh:


It's OK. He went and shouted apologies at their childrens' graves and sent the families a 3 month supply of SUPER MALE VITALITY and MAXX COCKROACH SURVIVABILITY ANTI-RAD iodine tablets.
User avatar
By maz
#14814295
Both Jones and Kelly are both doing this for ratings and publicity.

Jones already knows these interviews are setups, yet he does them anyways.

The Sandy Hook thing is stupid, and a lot of individuals are still milking the incident nearly five years on. The reason Megan Kelly obsessed over Sandy Hook is because she was set to host the Sandy Hook Promise annual event, where they try to come up with a way to ban responsible Americans from owning firearms.

She has now been relieved of hosting that event.
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/megyn-k ... 25971.html

Conspiracy theorists already know that Jones is not legit. He's moved away from 9/11 was an inside job completely into sharia law kookspiracy Muslims coming to get us nonsense.
#14814305
Oxymoron wrote:Yes because learning from history is so gay...


The context for this statement:

The Founding Fathers wrote:As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
#14814311
The Immortal Goon wrote:The context for this statement:



Context that with the US going to its very first war with Islamic belligerents within a decade of the signing of the constitution :lol:

you are checked sir, your move.
#14814315
skinster wrote:Oxy, you really believe Muslims want to impose shariah on the US? :lol:

On topic: I have no idea why these attention whores are listened to, on anything. :|


I believe any Muslim who does not want to impose shariah, is either an Atheist, or not really Muslim. The founding and driving force behind Islam, it its aggressive unrelenting drive to impose itself on everyone. It is the main duty of all Muslims to convert, expand, and wage war on the unbelievers.
#14814439
Oxymoron wrote:Context that with the US going to its very first war with Islamic belligerents


The Founders directly contradict this statement, at least the characterization of opposition from the, "Islamic belligerents."
#14814510
The Immortal Goon wrote:The Founders directly contradict this statement, at least the characterization of opposition from the, "Islamic belligerents."


I believe context is vital to understand the statement of the founders.... trying to placate the very same people that decade later you go to war with. They understood that they could not afford more enemies at the time.... you can find similar letter about Jews from G Washington...at a time that they needed all the loans they could get.... :lol: There is no evidence the Founding fathers respected, or very much liked the Musslemen. An out of context paragraph aside.
#14814558
Oxymoron wrote:There is no evidence the Founding fathers respected, or very much liked the Musslemen. An out of context paragraph aside.


Seeing as how virtually every Muslim in the Americas was made a slave by the Americans, it's accurate enough in a sense. However, the Americans practiced a race-based slavery that they had inherited from the Europeans. It was by virtue of race, not religion, that Muslims in America were slaves. The actual religion of anybody in the United States and abroad was specifically condemned as irrelevant.

Part of this comes from the Enlightenment in general, and part of it comes from the Founder's knowledge of English history. The last time that the attempt was made to create a republic, it was based specifically upon religious partisanship and ended in the autocracy of Cromwell after thousands had died, more had starved, and the land was laid fallow.

Jefferson wrote:an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.


The Baptists from the time, of all people, wrote:In this enlightened age, and in a land where all of every denomination are united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect that our representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species of religious as well as civil bondage. Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion, and there is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but what may be pleaded with equal propriety for establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who believe the Al Koran.


Iredell wrote:But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels.

..I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk, could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen's candor to judge what probability there is of the people's choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.


Madison wrote:One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment wd. have taken place in that State, if the legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created. Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince
#14814596
The Immortal Goon wrote:Seeing as how virtually every Muslim in the Americas was made a slave by the Americans, it's accurate enough in a sense. However, the Americans practiced a race-based slavery that they had inherited from the Europeans. It was by virtue of race, not religion, that Muslims in America were slaves. The actual religion of anybody in the United States and abroad was specifically condemned as irrelevant.

Part of this comes from the Enlightenment in general, and part of it comes from the Founder's knowledge of English history. The last time that the attempt was made to create a republic, it was based specifically upon religious partisanship and ended in the autocracy of Cromwell after thousands had died, more had starved, and the land was laid fallow.


I think we went in different directions, because I cannot for the life of me see what you are trying to say and how it relates to our conversation.
#14814597
The Founding Fathers specifically singled out Islam as not being alien to the foundation of mission of the United States.

It in no way means that Islam was particularly loved, just that they had no issue with any kind of religious preference in any way whatsoever for a variety of reasons.

This being true, your implied statement that learning from history would teach the opposite rings a certain amount of historiographical irony.
#14814600
The Immortal Goon wrote:The Founding Fathers specifically singled out Islam as not being alien to the foundation of mission of the United States.

It in no way means that Islam was particularly loved, just that they had no issue with any kind of religious preference in any way whatsoever for a variety of reasons.

This being true, your implied statement that learning from history would teach the opposite rings a certain amount of historiographical irony.


I see, now it makes sense. What is ironic is that Americans did not view Islam as Alien, but soon found that they were their very first enemies... What I was talking about was the overall history, and actions of the Muslims. Their founding, their rapid wars of expansion, their subjugation and forced conversions, their destruction of Holy sites, their conversion of holy sites. I am talking about the main facets of their faith, ones talking about conversions, violence on unbelievers, etc etc. While the founding fathers lumped them together with other religions, since most of them were Deist or Atheist of one form or another as all other enlightenment peeps. This does not mean they were right.... To be honest aside making a workable republic the founding fathers were not at all great statesmen.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]