Alex Jones is insane

[Sunni Man]

Alex Jones is usually spot on in his analysis of current events and the people behind them. ....

 

[Snouter]

Donald Trump is better compared to a Charlatan and Bernie Sanders is better compared to that professor that is a idealist that lack realism, but neither are Nazi at all...

On the contrary, The Donald is better compared to a very smart candidate who is not controlled by the jewish establishment and Bernie compared a fucking low IQ loon who is owned by Goldman Sachs as controlled opposition to Hillary who is owned by Goldman Sachs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Rush has used collectivist and fascist to describe those he calls the left.

Truth is Truth. 42% of democrats describe themselves as socialists. I'm afraid you Lefties are going to find that to most Americans being a socialist is what being homosexual meant politically in the past and still is to an extent.

A Bernie Sanders nominee for president will be defeated handily.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rush has used collectivist and fascist to describe those he calls the left.

Truth is Truth. 42% of democrats describe themselves as socialists. I'm afraid you Lefties are going to find that to most Americans being a socialist is what being homosexual meant politically in the past and still is to an extent.

A Bernie Sanders nominee for president will be defeated handily.

You throw terms around without understanding them. I agree that Bern will not be president.

 

[Mac1958]

When has Rush called a politician's followers nazis?

There are four comparisons on this page, in Rush's own words: Rush Limbaugh's obsession with Nazi comparisons

And, as any reasonable person would admit, his followers then take those comparisons and expand on them.

We see it on this site.

(FYI: That Google search took me about three seconds)
.

Cool and it would take me hours to watch them. It doesn't work that way. But saying a party is acting like the Nazi isn't quite the same as saying the followers are Nazis. His followers expand on them? WTF is that even supposed to mean?

No, it would not have taken hours. It took me about three minutes to hear what I was expecting. Not that tough for someone with a little intellectual curiosity.

As to your question, I'll try to clarify - it means that they take what he said and rhetorically move it forward whether it is appropriate or not. To wit:

Rush might say, "There are similarities between liberals and Nazis". And then one of his followers would say "liberals are Nazis".

If you want to deny such a thing happens frequently, great.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

When has Rush called a politician's followers nazis?

There are four comparisons on this page, in Rush's own words: Rush Limbaugh's obsession with Nazi comparisons

And, as any reasonable person would admit, his followers then take those comparisons and expand on them.

We see it on this site.

(FYI: That Google search took me about three seconds)
.

Cool and it would take me hours to watch them. It doesn't work that way. But saying a party is acting like the Nazi isn't quite the same as saying the followers are Nazis. His followers expand on them? WTF is that even supposed to mean?

No, it would not have taken hours. It took me about three minutes to hear what I was expecting. Not that tough for someone with a little intellectual curiosity.

As to your question, I'll try to clarify - it means that they take what he said and rhetorically move it forward whether it is appropriate or not. To wit:

Rush might say, "There are similarities between liberals and Nazis". And then one of his followers would say "liberals are Nazis".

If you want to deny such a thing happens frequently, great.
.

I already explained that I don't do others' research for them. Insulting me by insinuating I have no intellectual curiosity is dishonest, which is your MO. If you want to make a point go ahead and post it instead of whining about people not reading your 3 second research effort.

But thanks for proving I was right, he didn't call them Nazis. Trying to massage it with what some fictitious caller might say doesn't quite cut the mustard.

 

[Mac1958]

When has Rush called a politician's followers nazis?

There are four comparisons on this page, in Rush's own words: Rush Limbaugh's obsession with Nazi comparisons

And, as any reasonable person would admit, his followers then take those comparisons and expand on them.

We see it on this site.

(FYI: That Google search took me about three seconds)
.

Cool and it would take me hours to watch them. It doesn't work that way. But saying a party is acting like the Nazi isn't quite the same as saying the followers are Nazis. His followers expand on them? WTF is that even supposed to mean?

No, it would not have taken hours. It took me about three minutes to hear what I was expecting. Not that tough for someone with a little intellectual curiosity.

As to your question, I'll try to clarify - it means that they take what he said and rhetorically move it forward whether it is appropriate or not. To wit:

Rush might say, "There are similarities between liberals and Nazis". And then one of his followers would say "liberals are Nazis".

If you want to deny such a thing happens frequently, great.
.

I already explained that I don't do others' research for them. Insulting me by insinuating I have no intellectual curiosity is dishonest, which is your MO. If you want to make a point go ahead and post it instead of whining about people not reading your 3 second research effort.

But thanks for proving I was right, he didn't call them Nazis. Trying to massage it with what some fictitious caller might say doesn't quite cut the mustard.

You asked a question, I answered it, you predictably avoided it.

Okie dokie, sounds good.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

When has Rush called a politician's followers nazis?

There are four comparisons on this page, in Rush's own words: Rush Limbaugh's obsession with Nazi comparisons

And, as any reasonable person would admit, his followers then take those comparisons and expand on them.

We see it on this site.

(FYI: That Google search took me about three seconds)
.

Cool and it would take me hours to watch them. It doesn't work that way. But saying a party is acting like the Nazi isn't quite the same as saying the followers are Nazis. His followers expand on them? WTF is that even supposed to mean?

No, it would not have taken hours. It took me about three minutes to hear what I was expecting. Not that tough for someone with a little intellectual curiosity.

As to your question, I'll try to clarify - it means that they take what he said and rhetorically move it forward whether it is appropriate or not. To wit:

Rush might say, "There are similarities between liberals and Nazis". And then one of his followers would say "liberals are Nazis".

If you want to deny such a thing happens frequently, great.
.

I already explained that I don't do others' research for them. Insulting me by insinuating I have no intellectual curiosity is dishonest, which is your MO. If you want to make a point go ahead and post it instead of whining about people not reading your 3 second research effort.

But thanks for proving I was right, he didn't call them Nazis. Trying to massage it with what some fictitious caller might say doesn't quite cut the mustard.

You asked a question, I answered it, you predictably avoided it.

Okie dokie, sounds good.
.

I answered you, have a grownup walk you through it, okie dokie? And change your Tampon.

 

[Moonglow]

Alex Jones is my favorite brand of toilet bowel cleaner...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But thanks for proving I was right, he didn't call them Nazis."

You need to do your own research, goofball.

Rush uses terms like collectivist and fascist. The language is clear as to his meaning.

So stop the falsehood. You are better than that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I thought Alex Jones was that black guy that got tossed for being a radical.

 

[Rouge Rover]

I'm not sure Alex Jones is insane but the people who take him seriously might be.

 

[Swagger]

If anyone wants to see the full interview where Alex Jones was neatly filleted by David Duke, please, get in touch. It got so bad that Jones' Jew producer was forced from behind the curtain in an attempt at running interference due to Jones being so far out of his depth. I kinda felt sorry for the Fatman, but now that his followers have largely abandoned him, compounded by his huge fundraising drive to pay for his costly divorce from a Jewess, his goose is cooked.

 

[Swagger]

Alex Jones is usually spot on in his analysis of current events and the people behind them. ....

Hmmm... there are certain 'theories' that Jones is clearly forbidden from touching. You and I both know where he won't go.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hmmm... there are certain 'theories' that Jones is clearly forbidden from touching. You and I both know where he won't go.

True........he won't go there because of his wife and her family.

Which leaves out a key piece of the NWO puzzle and who really runs the world. .....

 

[Skylar]

Hmmm... there are certain 'theories' that Jones is clearly forbidden from touching. You and I both know where he won't go.

True........he won't go there because of his wife and her family.

Which leaves out a key piece of the NWO puzzle and who really runs the world. .....

The NWO is kind of a conspiracy Rorschach test. A blank canvas for people to project their beliefs upon.

 

[Pogo]

There's a lot of this flowing through the GOP right now. Hyperbole, absolutism, everyone over there is a communist, everyone over there is a Nazi.

People like this have FAR too much influence in the party.
.

I don't know that Jones has all that much influence. He and his followers are a special breed of fringe.

He's on the edge, agreed, but on the same general end as Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity.
.

Wrong. Rush is largely a political commentator, Alex Jones is heavily into conspiracies of all sorts. When has Rush called a politician's followers nazis?

About 25 years ago...

Limbaugh In 1992 Book: "I Prefer To Call The Most Obnoxious Feminists What They Really Are: Feminazis​