Peter Schiff + Alex Jones

[psi2941]

YouTube - Peter Schiff: Ready to Lay The "Smackdown" on Linda McMahon Come August 10th! 1/4

YouTube - Peter Schiff: Ready to Lay The "Smackdown" on Linda McMahon Come August 10th! 2/4

YouTube - Peter Schiff: Ready to Lay The "Smackdown" on Linda McMahon Come August 10th! 3/4

YouTube - Peter Schiff: Ready to Lay The "Smackdown" on Linda McMahon Come August 10th! 4/4

[libertybrewcity]

good talk. he was really grilling schiff on iran.

[K466]

I'm surprised Alex had him back on after info wars blasted Schiff about 6 months ago.

[FrankRep]

LA County Libertarian Examiner:


Peter Schiff unravels on Alex Jones show, advocating preemptive strike on 'nuclear' Iran
http://www.examiner.com/x-27692-LA-C...n-nuclear-Iran

[freshjiva]

Does anyone have any statistics on Alex Jones' listenership? How many people tune into his show on a daily basis?

[K466]

LA County Libertarian Examiner:


Peter Schiff unravels on Alex Jones show, advocating preemptive strike on 'nuclear' Iran
http://www.examiner.com/x-27692-LA-C...n-nuclear-Iran

I commented there too, and it looks like we might have gotten someone else to consider supporting Schiff:

Eric Dondero says:
Defend America, those guys who are Anti-Defense are PRETEND LIBERTARIANS. They do not in any way represent our libertarian movement. We REAL LIBERTARIANS are Goldwater/Reagan Pro-Defense. I wasn't supporting Schiff. I was backing McMahon. I may now switch.
July 13, 6:46 AM

[Bergie Bergeron]

Oh no, Iran? Really Peter?

[jmdrake]

I'm surprised Alex had him back on after info wars blasted Schiff about 6 months ago.

I'm not. The only thing info wars "blasted" Schiff on was foreign policy. And Alex Jones has his own reputation to think about. (Hard to imagine I know). For years he's gone after any politician from either party that's towed the neocon / neolib agenda. And even when its a politician he likes, he doesn't mind putting that politician in the "hot seat". For instance he's had Dennis Kucinich on multiple times and yet he blasted Kucinich for calling for a total gun ban. Yet he had Kucinich on after that to talk about the audit the fed bill and other issues.

[K466]

I'm not. The only think info wars "blasted" Schiff on was foreign policy. And Alex Jones has his own reputation to think about. (Hard to imagine I know). For years he's gone after any politician from either party that's towed the neocon / neolib agenda. And even when its a politician he likes, he doesn't mind putting that politician in the "hot seat". For instance he's had Dennis Kucinich on multiple times and yet he blasted Kucinich for calling for a total gun ban. Yet he had Kucinich on after that to talk about the audit the fed bill and other issues.

Interesting, I don't listen to him much except when he interviews Schiff or Paul.

[G-Wohl]

Oh no, Iran? Really Peter?

The real Republican Party actually cares about this issue.

[jmdrake]

I commented there too, and it looks like we might have gotten someone else to consider supporting Schiff:

Well here's a comment that supports both the Alex Jones position that fear mongering against Iran is not good as well as the Schiff position that his one statement on Iran doesn't make him pro war.

To Tonylvnv: You need to educate yourself on the history of Iran and its political structure. Prior to Ahmadinijad, Iran had a president that was trying to appease the west. He was part of the U.S. led coalition that drove the Taliban from power and he offered a "grand bargain" to Bush to end his peaceful nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for security guarantees. It was after these gestures were ignored and rebuffed that Khatami was replaced with Ahmadinijad. Iran is trying a strategy now of "peace through strength" since we seem intent on "regime change" no matter what they do.

Google: "Frontline Showdown with Iran Grand Bargain" and "Frontline Showdown with Iran Taliban" for more info.

As for the Schiff interview itself, I think it went well. The author of this article ignored where Schiff said he was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

That last comment by Schiff is the most important of the interview IMO. Jones rightly pointed out that we can't trust U.S. WMD intel after Iraq. But apparently Schiff wasn't fooled by that intel in the first place. I wish Schiff had pointed that out to the neocon voter that was talking to him in the first place, but again he's trying to get votes. All in all this was a very good interview.

[G-Wohl]

Overall I wouldn't take this interview too seriously. Peter likely didn't go onto Alex Jones for any reason other than to get the chance to solicit for more donations. He knows that Nutmeggers don't listen to Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones himself is a complete cook.

Pete's statements on this show will likely have few connotations with regard to his actual campaign.

[low preference guy]

Peter likely didn't go onto Alex Jones for any reason other than to get the chance to solicit for more donations.

Probably. But thanks to the following tidbit of information you provided, the Alex Jones watchers who read this forum and were planning to donate will refrain from doing it.

He knows that [...] Alex Jones himself is a complete cook.

Congratulations! You made Peter's talk to Alex Jones a complete waste of his time!

Can you please tell me your secret? How do you manage to be such a big idiot? Because if anyone else tried it, even if they tried really, really hard, they couldn't become as big of an idiot as you are.

[dannno]

Somebody in the comments insinuated that this all means Schiff supports our overseas empire.. sigh...

[jmdrake]

Probably. But thanks to the following tidbit of information you provided, the Alex Jones watchers who read this forum and were planning to donate will refrain from doing it.



Congratulations! You made Peter's talk to Alex Jones a complete waste of his time!

Can you please tell me your secret? How do you manage to be such a big idiot? Because if anyone else tried it, even if they tried really, really hard, they couldn't become as big of an idiot as you are.

LOL. While I'm not thinking about donating, I am considering phone banking based on the interview and AJ giving Schiff another shot. This was a lot more convincing then the "We owe it to Schiff because we asked him to run" guilt trip threads. (I personally never asked Schiff to run for anything). It is good to know that Schiff a better man than some of his supporters. After all, I'm sure if he "G-Wohl" he wouldn't have gone on the Alex Jones show at all and I never would have had a chance to hear him explain his statement on Iran. While it still isn't perfect (he overplayed the Iran threat), at least I could read from his comments about opposing the war in Iraq that he wouldn't support a war with Iran based on the same crappy intel standard used to justify the Iraq war.

[jmdrake]

Somebody in the comments insinuated that this all means Schiff supports our overseas empire.. sigh...

And someone else in the comments claimed that Schiff was "above nonsense like constitutionalism". And this was from someone supporting Schiff! People need to realize that you don't have to be a douche just so that you can support a good candidate who's said something that doesn't on the surface make sense.

[G-Wohl]

Congratulations! You made Peter's talk to Alex Jones a complete waste of his time!

Can you please tell me your secret? How do you manage to be such a big idiot? Because if anyone else tried it, even if they tried really, really hard, they couldn't become as big of an idiot as you are.

Well, frankly, it was a big waste of time, but it's what he had to do.

If Pete were doing better, he wouldn't need to go onto Alex Jones. The reason he went is because he so desperately needs donations that he's resorting to giving one hour of his time to Alex Jones. If he were more comfortable with the amount of campaign cash he had to work with, and if he were able to solicit the donations required to run a successful Senate campaign in Connecticut, then he wouldn't be on Alex Jones attempting to "justify" his Iran position to a brain-dead talk radio host and his bran-dead listeners.

LOL. While I'm not thinking about donating, I am considering phone banking based on the interview and AJ giving Schiff another shot. This was a lot more convincing then the "We owe it to Schiff because we asked him to run" guilt trip threads. (I personally never asked Schiff to run for anything). It is good to know that Schiff a better man than some of his supporters. After all, I'm sure if he "G-Wohl" he wouldn't have gone on the Alex Jones show at all and I never would have had a chance to hear him explain his statement on Iran. While it still isn't perfect (he overplayed the Iran threat), at least I could read from his comments about opposing the war in Iraq that he wouldn't support a war with Iran based on the same crappy intel standard used to justify the Iraq war.

Schiff isn't talking about going to war with Iran - he is talking about disengaging a threat coming out of Iran. By the way, Peter's original Iran statements won him A LOT of respect among Republicans at the RTCs, while it made the Alex Jones crowd go nuts (I was actually surprised about that by this point in the race - silly me). It was the Alex Jones people spreading all of this Iran nonsense on Reddit and the like that made Pete's candidacy lose a lot of support among the out-of-state libertarians/conservatives.

And someone else in the comments claimed that Schiff was "above nonsense like constitutionalism". And this was from someone supporting Schiff! People need to realize that you don't have to be a douche just so that you can support a good candidate who's said something that doesn't on the surface make sense.

If Peter took the position that you and other Alex Jones viewers advocate, he would have no chance and would be laughed off the stage here in Connecticut. The 'douches' are the ones parading all these $#@!ing conspiracy theories, out-of-state support, and love for other politicians and figures who are EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR in our state. The average CT voter sees these comments and associates Pete's candidacy with rabid rednecks on the outer political fringes. We CANNOT have the clean, rational message of capitalism be demeaned by Alex Jones, 9/11 truth, and religious fanaticism. CT voters don't want to hear it.

This one oasis among the desert of posts, which actually makes the point to say that Pete's views are rational and consistent (unlike the constitutionalists, who take the Constitution as some sort of infallible truth which takes priority OVER the goal of attaining individual liberties), is the kind of stuff we need to be seeing more often.

[klamath]

Well, frankly, it was a big waste of time, but it's what he had to do.

If Pete were doing better, he wouldn't need to go onto Alex Jones. The reason he went is because he so desperately needs donations that he's resorting to giving one hour of his time to Alex Jones. If he were more comfortable with the amount of campaign cash he had to work with, and if he were able to solicit the donations required to run a successful Senate campaign in Connecticut, then he wouldn't be on Alex Jones attempting to "justify" his Iran position to a brain-dead talk radio host and his bran-dead listeners.



Schiff isn't talking about going to war with Iran - he is talking about disengaging a threat coming out of Iran. By the way, Peter's original Iran statements won him A LOT of respect among Republicans at the RTCs, while it made the Alex Jones crowd go nuts (I was actually surprised about that by this point in the race - silly me). It was the Alex Jones people spreading all of this Iran nonsense on Reddit and the like that made Pete's candidacy lose a lot of support among the out-of-state libertarians/conservatives.



If Peter took the position that you and other Alex Jones viewers advocate, he would have no chance and would be laughed off the stage here in Connecticut. The 'douches' are the ones parading all these $#@!ing conspiracy theories, out-of-state support, and love for other politicians and figures who are EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR in our state. The average CT voter sees these comments and associates Pete's candidacy with rabid rednecks on the outer political fringes. We CANNOT have the clean, rational message of capitalism be demeaned by Alex Jones, 9/11 truth, and religious fanaticism. CT voters don't want to hear it.

This one oasis among the desert of posts, which actually makes the point to say that Pete's views are rational and consistent (unlike the constitutionalists, who take the Constitution as some sort of infallible truth which takes priority OVER the goal of attaining individual liberties), is the kind of stuff we need to be seeing more often.

I see the McMahon troll is back working hard to drive voters away from Schiff. I'm sure she pays well.

[G-Wohl]

I see the McMahon troll is back working hard to drive voters away from Schiff. I'm sure she pays well.

Hah. Welcome back klamath, I've missed you. Have you been making phone calls on behalf of Peter, or making some money you can GIVE to Peter, since you've been gone?

Believe me: I don't need McMahon's money. I've got plenty of my own.

[klamath]

Hah. Welcome back klamath, I've missed you. Have you been making phone calls on behalf of Peter, or making some money you can GIVE to Peter, since you've been gone?

Believe me: I don't need McMahon's money. I've got plenty of my own.

Well well well. Why aren't YOU making calls for Schiff instead of being on the Ronpaulforums? On second thought don't. Anybody you would talk to would end up voting for McMahon or blummy himself after talking to you.

[jmdrake]

Well, frankly, it was a big waste of time, but it's what he had to do.

If Pete were doing better, he wouldn't need to go onto Alex Jones. The reason he went is because he so desperately needs donations that he's resorting to giving one hour of his time to Alex Jones. If he were more comfortable with the amount of campaign cash he had to work with, and if he were able to solicit the donations required to run a successful Senate campaign in Connecticut, then he wouldn't be on Alex Jones attempting to "justify" his Iran position to a brain-dead talk radio host and his bran-dead listeners.

Are you naturally a jerk or do you have to work on it? Also, why do you feel the need to undermine Peter's efforts at raising money? Let's assume your right and this is some desperate attempt on Schiff's part to raise money. (Nevermind the fact that Schiff went on the Alex Jones show multiple times between the end of the Ron Paul campaign and the beginning of his own). Do you think talking down to people you don't know is a way to encourage donations?

Schiff isn't talking about going to war with Iran - he is talking about disengaging a threat coming out of Iran. By the way, Peter's original Iran statements won him A LOT of respect among Republicans at the RTCs, while it made the Alex Jones crowd go nuts (I was actually surprised about that by this point in the race - silly me). It was the Alex Jones people spreading all of this Iran nonsense on Reddit and the like that made Pete's candidacy lose a lot of support among the out-of-state libertarians/conservatives.

Disengaging a threat? What kind of stupid newspeak is that? And it didn't just make the "Alex Jones crowd go nuts". A lot of people here who don't even like Alex Jones were bothered by the comments. And I didn't see it on "Reddit". I saw it on YouTube.

If Peter took the position that you and other Alex Jones viewers advocate, he would have no chance and would be laughed off the stage here in Connecticut. The 'douches' are the ones parading all these $#@!ing conspiracy theories, out-of-state support, and love for other politicians and figures who are EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR in our state. The average CT voter sees these comments and associates Pete's candidacy with rabid rednecks on the outer political fringes. We CANNOT have the clean, rational message of capitalism be demeaned by Alex Jones, 9/11 truth, and religious fanaticism. CT voters don't want to hear it.

You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to think bombing Iran is a stupid idea. Not unless you think Ron Paul himself is a 9/11 truther.

This one oasis among the desert of posts, which actually makes the point to say that Pete's views are rational and consistent (unlike the constitutionalists, who take the Constitution as some sort of infallible truth which takes priority OVER the goal of attaining individual liberties), is the kind of stuff we need to be seeing more often.

Constitutionalists are irrational? So you think Ron Paul is irrational? What are you doing on RPF then? And what does bombing Iran have to do with individual liberties? What other unconstitutional anti libertarian views is Schiff hiding under a cover of "individual liberties"? On second thought, don't tell me. I believe Schiff is too intelligent to go along with your self destructive crap and is just playing a role for dumbed down voters. Unfortunately that means we have to put up with you for the time being.

[K466]

It was a pretty good interview. Hopefully we get a few more phone bankers from it.

[klamath]

Are you naturally a jerk or do you have to work on it? Also, why do you feel the need to undermine Peter's efforts at raising money? Let's assume your right and this is some desperate attempt on Schiff's part to raise money. (Nevermind the fact that Schiff went on the Alex Jones show multiple times between the end of the Ron Paul campaign and the beginning of his own). Do you think talking down to people you don't know is a way to encourage donations?



Disengaging a threat? What kind of stupid newspeak is that? And it didn't just make the "Alex Jones crowd go nuts". A lot of people here who don't even like Alex Jones were bothered by the comments. And I didn't see it on "Reddit". I saw it on YouTube.




You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to think bombing Iran is a stupid idea. Not unless you think Ron Paul himself is a 9/11 truther.



Constitutionalists are irrational? So you think Ron Paul is irrational? What are you doing on RPF then? And what does bombing Iran have to do with individual liberties? What other unconstitutional anti libertarian views is Schiff hiding under a cover of "individual liberties"? On second thought, don't tell me. I believe Schiff is too intelligent to go along with your self destructive crap and is just playing a role for dumbed down voters. Unfortunately that means we have to put up with you for the time being.

Yes he does. He has stated his contempt for RP multiple times. In fact he seems to hate all other politicians that are not Schiff and doesn't miss an oportunity to state it.

[qwerty]

How the hell you would not like to help Peter to get to senate ?

YOU ARE CRAZY PEOPLE!

[jmdrake]

How the hell you would not like to help Peter to get to senate ?

YOU ARE CRAZY PEOPLE!

Who exactly are you talking about? Everyone in this thread is supporting Schiff's senate run.

[psi2941]

Who exactly are you talking about? Everyone in this thread is supporting Schiff's senate run.

I think its related to the iran question, people r like i can't support him because his ok with bombing iran.

[G-Wohl]

Are you naturally a jerk or do you have to work on it? Also, why do you feel the need to undermine Peter's efforts at raising money? Let's assume your right and this is some desperate attempt on Schiff's part to raise money. (Nevermind the fact that Schiff went on the Alex Jones show multiple times between the end of the Ron Paul campaign and the beginning of his own). Do you think talking down to people you don't know is a way to encourage donations?

I am not Peter Schiff's spokesperson. I have no power to encourage or discourage donations.

Disengaging a threat? What kind of stupid newspeak is that?

It's not newspeak; it's the most concise way I could differentiate between what the discussion was ACTUALLY about and what you THOUGHT it was about. Peter's statements were specifically regarding the possibility that we find unquestionable evidence that Iran possessed a nuclear weapon. Disengaging that threat would be to send bombers/drones over their borders and destroying all the people and property that make this threat a possibility. This is quite different from going to war, where ground troops would need to be sent, and lots of American blood and treasure would be lost (like in Afghanistan and Iraq today). If our military spent more time disengaging clear threats to our country's security and interests, instead of going to war with third-world countries and establishing anarchical meritocracies in them, we'd be a lot better off, and that would be the gist of Peter's message here.

You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to think bombing Iran is a stupid idea. Not unless you think Ron Paul himself is a 9/11 truther.

First of all, with regard to the first sentence, I never said to the contrary. However, this makes no sense. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to think bombing Iran is stupid - unless you think Ron Paul is a truther? Then you DO have to believe in conspiracy theories? What kind of nonsense is that? Try formulating your ideas a little better, because right now you're insulting my intelligence. Putting nonsensical phrases in your posts is not going to "trick" me into saying something ridiculous.

Constitutionalists are irrational? So you think Ron Paul is irrational? What are you doing on RPF then? And what does bombing Iran have to do with individual liberties? What other unconstitutional anti libertarian views is Schiff hiding under a cover of "individual liberties"? On second thought, don't tell me. I believe Schiff is too intelligent to go along with your self destructive crap and is just playing a role for dumbed down voters. Unfortunately that means we have to put up with you for the time being.

Yes, Constitutionalists are irrational. Yes, I think Ron Paul is irrational. I'm on the RPF because I'm supporting Peter Schiff's run for Senate. I've been a huge supporter since late 2005, and have been involved with him and EuroPac in other ways before he even became of any interest to the Ron Paul people. Do I have to hold Ron Paul as a demagogue of a political ideology with which I do not agree to be allowed to access this message board?

[rich34]

I'm glad Peter went on Alex's show. I think Alex has strayed over the years, but he still has a decent size audience. I honestly believe that it was a lot of his listeners/gcn network that helped get the first couple Ron Paul moneybombs blasted off the ground. A lot of those pro liberty sites advertised for Ron's moneybombs, but they don't seem to be doing so for the senate races. Unfortuneate..

[jmdrake]

I am not Peter Schiff's spokesperson. I have no power to encourage or discourage donations.

You have the power of influence just like anyone else. Someone could read your post and think "If this is what hardcore Schiff supporters are like, then I'm not giving him crap".

It's not newspeak; it's the most concise way I could differentiate between what the discussion was ACTUALLY about and what you THOUGHT it was about.

Yes it is newspeak. Confronting Iran would be engaging the threat. Deciding to take an noninterventionist approach would be disengaging. But maybe you're just easily confused.

Peter's statements were specifically regarding the possibility that we find unquestionable evidence that Iran possessed a nuclear weapon. Disengaging that threat would be to send bombers/drones over their borders and destroying all the people and property that make this threat a possibility.

No. That wouldn't be "disengaging the threat". That would be "destroying the threat". Yep. You're easily confused.

First of all, with regard to the first sentence, I never said to the contrary.

You clearly implied the contrary when you said If Peter took the position that you and other Alex Jones viewers advocate. Where did I say that Peter Schiff should come out and call 9/11 an inside job? Where did Alex Jones say that? Alex merely pointed out that Schiff would probably have stronger grassroots support if he hadn't made the statement he did about Iran.

However, this makes no sense. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to think bombing Iran is stupid - unless you think Ron Paul is a truther? Then you DO have to believe in conspiracy theories? What kind of nonsense is that? Try formulating your ideas a little better, because right now you're insulting my intelligence. Putting nonsensical phrases in your posts is not going to "trick" me into saying something ridiculous.

It makes perfect sense to someone not easily confused like yourself. Bombing Iran is a dumb idea. A lot of people in this movement recognize that. Many who recognize that are NOT truthers. For you to try to bring 9/11 into it is a ploy of desperation.

Yes, Constitutionalists are irrational. Yes, I think Ron Paul is irrational. I'm on the RPF because I'm supporting Peter Schiff's run for Senate.

How so exactly? What parts of the constitution are you wanting to ignore and why? What parts of the constitution do you think Peter Schiff ignores and why? Being against something without being able intellectually articulate a reason is the epitome of irrationality.

I've been a huge supporter since late 2005, and have been involved with him and EuroPac in other ways before he even became of any interest to the Ron Paul people. Do I have to hold Ron Paul as a demagogue of a political ideology with which I do not agree to be allowed to access this message board?

I'm not the board owner. I can't ban you. You can be as irrational as you want to. But I have seen no evidence to support your contention that Peter Schiff shares your contempt for the constitution.

[constituent]

Schiff isn't talking about going to war with Iran - he is talking about disengaging a threat coming out of Iran.

Yea, and I don't see how that could ever possibly kick off a war.

Certainly the Iranians will take it lying down... riiiiiiiiight.

Advocating bombing Iran is advocating war with Iran.

Do all the verbal gymnastics you want. They won't alter reality.

Yes, Constitutionalists are irrational

Care to elaborate?

Frankly, anyone who believes that bombing Iran isn't starting a war with Iran is not only irrational but delusional to boot!