User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:24:23 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryLol JFC. Me like cookie lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:30:22 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe Alex Jones before I believe you. I've seen your posts Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm listening to Mike Adams who says: Judge ordered Alex to turn over all financial records. He did. Judge asked him for his marketing surveys. Alex said they didn't do any and just winged it. Judge said he lied and held summary judgment against him; denying him any opportunity to challenge any of the evidence or accusations. Alex files for bankruptcy to protect himself against anticipated fine from the court. If what Mike Adams says is true, it reminds me of the way the FBI or any other federal agency tries to destroy someone. They jam you with court and attorney fees until you're broke. If they did this to AJ, they can (and have) do it to anyone. It's the way of the Fed. Can't wait for the dollar to die. Their power evaporates and the government should shrink (how do they pay for it when the FRN is worthless?). This is how Alex has explained it multiple times on his show I believe Alex Jones before I believe you. I've seen your posts |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:31:27 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol JFC. Me like cookie lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol JFC. Me like cookie lol.  I don't see how anyone could not legit laugh out loud at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:33:30 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He also sells a gay frog t-shirt lmao He sells a save the frogs shirt, which I own. I also have the arrest fauci shirt with a pic of fauci with a hitler mustache but the mustache is a tiny mask. Support the Infowar, get great products, it's a 360 win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:36:23 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To all the people saying these types of lawsuits chill free speech, you must be really upset at Trump for filing this one. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/124774/B6B5B4D2-8F6D-4CFB-A253-F8CE1A757ECE-2355081.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Regular people became apathetic about lies from the leftist MSM and did nothing to stop them until they see lives destroyed and now the death throws of our Republic. Some still care and that number increases daily. Leftists have been able to say anything they want for decades but sane people are starting to win here and there. https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o85xzgkEE1YPEEo9i/giphy.gif https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/124774/B6B5B4D2-8F6D-4CFB-A253-F8CE1A757ECE-2355081.jpg How much did he win? Enough to bankrupt CNN yet? Otherwise they are not similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:39:04 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe Alex Jones before I believe you. I've seen your posts This is why we can’t have nice things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:39:25 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He sells a save the frogs shirt, which I own. I also have the arrest fauci shirt with a pic of fauci with a hitler mustache but the mustache is a tiny mask. Support the Infowar, get great products, it's a 360 win. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He also sells a gay frog t-shirt lmao He sells a save the frogs shirt, which I own. I also have the arrest fauci shirt with a pic of fauci with a hitler mustache but the mustache is a tiny mask. Support the Infowar, get great products, it's a 360 win. Yep I have that one. I also have the THERE'S POISON IN THE DRINKING WATER shirt I just posted and an infowars mug. Funny enough my normal centrist best friend thinks they're all great as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:39:33 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look at all you suckers, arguing with each other. How's it feel to be brainwashed into division as planned? Pull back the curtain, wake up to see the real enemies. We are not all on the same side here. It becomes clearer in every controversial thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:39:47 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That says more about you than it does me, unfortunately. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm listening to Mike Adams who says: Judge ordered Alex to turn over all financial records. He did. Judge asked him for his marketing surveys. Alex said they didn't do any and just winged it. Judge said he lied and held summary judgment against him; denying him any opportunity to challenge any of the evidence or accusations. Alex files for bankruptcy to protect himself against anticipated fine from the court. If what Mike Adams says is true, it reminds me of the way the FBI or any other federal agency tries to destroy someone. They jam you with court and attorney fees until you're broke. If they did this to AJ, they can (and have) do it to anyone. It's the way of the Fed. Can't wait for the dollar to die. Their power evaporates and the government should shrink (how do they pay for it when the FRN is worthless?). This is how Alex has explained it multiple times on his show I believe Alex Jones before I believe you. I've seen your posts I honestly don't care. You're one of a group of people here who go from thread to thread looking to stir up shit or shit on people's beliefs and ideas. You argue in circles and declare yourself victorious. You jump on people for believing one thing while you preach something that's equally or more retarded. Like I said, I've seen your posts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:39:54 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good for him... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:40:48 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I honestly don't care. You're one of a group of people here who go from thread to thread looking to stir up shit or shit on people's beliefs and ideas. You argue in circles and declare yourself victorious. You jump on people for believing one thing while you preach something that's equally or more retarded. Like I said, I've seen your posts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm listening to Mike Adams who says: Judge ordered Alex to turn over all financial records. He did. Judge asked him for his marketing surveys. Alex said they didn't do any and just winged it. Judge said he lied and held summary judgment against him; denying him any opportunity to challenge any of the evidence or accusations. Alex files for bankruptcy to protect himself against anticipated fine from the court. If what Mike Adams says is true, it reminds me of the way the FBI or any other federal agency tries to destroy someone. They jam you with court and attorney fees until you're broke. If they did this to AJ, they can (and have) do it to anyone. It's the way of the Fed. Can't wait for the dollar to die. Their power evaporates and the government should shrink (how do they pay for it when the FRN is worthless?). This is how Alex has explained it multiple times on his show I believe Alex Jones before I believe you. I've seen your posts I honestly don't care. You're one of a group of people here who go from thread to thread looking to stir up shit or shit on people's beliefs and ideas. You argue in circles and declare yourself victorious. You jump on people for believing one thing while you preach something that's equally or more retarded. Like I said, I've seen your posts. And bring Trump into as many otherwise-unrelated threads as possible. Including this one IIRC. Total clown |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:42:21 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's also a liar. He failed to comply with discovery and directly disobeyed the judge's order in multiple cases. His entire strategy with the cases was to not participate and ignore the trial court and the plaintiffs. When a defendant does that, the plaintiffs cannot prosecute their case and the only remedy is to enter a default judgment against the defendant. Otherwise, a defendant could just pretend like the case didn't exist and it would never get to trial because evidence isn't produced during discovery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm listening to Mike Adams who says: Judge ordered Alex to turn over all financial records. He did. Judge asked him for his marketing surveys. Alex said they didn't do any and just winged it. Judge said he lied and held summary judgment against him; denying him any opportunity to challenge any of the evidence or accusations. Alex files for bankruptcy to protect himself against anticipated fine from the court. If what Mike Adams says is true, it reminds me of the way the FBI or any other federal agency tries to destroy someone. They jam you with court and attorney fees until you're broke. If they did this to AJ, they can (and have) do it to anyone. It's the way of the Fed. Can't wait for the dollar to die. Their power evaporates and the government should shrink (how do they pay for it when the FRN is worthless?). This is how Alex has explained it multiple times on his show Failing to provide marketing surveys that don’t exist looks like failure to comply with discovery to a hostile judge. Do you have specific examples of his failure to provide things that he did have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:43:07 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much did he win? Enough to bankrupt CNN yet? Otherwise they are not similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:44:02 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, that case is quite different. She made one off-hand comment on one show about OAN being “paid Russian propaganda” (or something like that) in specific reference to a news story on the Daily Beast that one of the OAN journalists was literally working for a Russian government-owned news agency, IIRC. It was one comment on one show, specifically related to a story (from another news organization). Sure, it was an exaggeration because obviously not everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia, but the fact that one of their journalists apparently was, at least gave the statement (exaggerated as it was) a clear connection to reality. Her legal defense essentially had two parts. 1) she didn’t make the claim about the guy being paid by Russia, she was just reporting on a news story by the Daily Beast 2) her show is NOT a news show, but a political commentary show, so nobody should be surprised at some level of sarcasm, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. As such, anyone watching her show would have clearly understood that she wasn’t actually making a claim that everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia. Alex Jones, on the other hand, claims that he IS providing news, and claims that he is providing facts/truth. That makes it less credible for him to claim “oh, I am just a commentator/entertainer, so you can’t believe anything I say” Second, he didn’t just make one off-hand comment on one show. He repeatedly made this claim, over and over again on his show. If Rachel Maddow had kept repeating her ridiculous exaggeration over and over again over the next days and weeks, and started to claim that EVERYONE at OAN was being paid by Russia (in other words, the kind of thing Alex Jones was doing), then the defamation case against her would absolutely have been successful, and her defense would not have worked. So yes, the defense is similar - but the situation is very different, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Second off, the legit exact defense was used successfully by Rachel Maddow. . Actually, that case is quite different. She made one off-hand comment on one show about OAN being “paid Russian propaganda” (or something like that) in specific reference to a news story on the Daily Beast that one of the OAN journalists was literally working for a Russian government-owned news agency, IIRC. It was one comment on one show, specifically related to a story (from another news organization). Sure, it was an exaggeration because obviously not everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia, but the fact that one of their journalists apparently was, at least gave the statement (exaggerated as it was) a clear connection to reality. Her legal defense essentially had two parts. 1) she didn’t make the claim about the guy being paid by Russia, she was just reporting on a news story by the Daily Beast 2) her show is NOT a news show, but a political commentary show, so nobody should be surprised at some level of sarcasm, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. As such, anyone watching her show would have clearly understood that she wasn’t actually making a claim that everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia. Alex Jones, on the other hand, claims that he IS providing news, and claims that he is providing facts/truth. That makes it less credible for him to claim “oh, I am just a commentator/entertainer, so you can’t believe anything I say” Second, he didn’t just make one off-hand comment on one show. He repeatedly made this claim, over and over again on his show. If Rachel Maddow had kept repeating her ridiculous exaggeration over and over again over the next days and weeks, and started to claim that EVERYONE at OAN was being paid by Russia (in other words, the kind of thing Alex Jones was doing), then the defamation case against her would absolutely have been successful, and her defense would not have worked. So yes, the defense is similar - but the situation is very different, IMO. Alex Jones is more news than MSNBC? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:47:58 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The criticism that is being made in this thread is that free speech should be absolute and people should be able to lie with no consequences. Trump's suit is contrary to that belief. He is now, and has in the past, sued because people lied about him. That position is inconsistent with what the free speech absolutists in this thread are saying, which means that they should be criticizing Trump for even trying. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How much did he win? Enough to bankrupt CNN yet? Otherwise they are not similar. I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:48:51 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alex Jones is more news than MSNBC? Yes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:50:22 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Failing to provide marketing surveys that don't exist looks like failure to comply with discovery to a hostile judge. Do you have specific examples of his failure to provide things that he did have? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm listening to Mike Adams who says: Judge ordered Alex to turn over all financial records. He did. Judge asked him for his marketing surveys. Alex said they didn't do any and just winged it. Judge said he lied and held summary judgment against him; denying him any opportunity to challenge any of the evidence or accusations. Alex files for bankruptcy to protect himself against anticipated fine from the court. If what Mike Adams says is true, it reminds me of the way the FBI or any other federal agency tries to destroy someone. They jam you with court and attorney fees until you're broke. If they did this to AJ, they can (and have) do it to anyone. It's the way of the Fed. Can't wait for the dollar to die. Their power evaporates and the government should shrink (how do they pay for it when the FRN is worthless?). This is how Alex has explained it multiple times on his show Failing to provide marketing surveys that don't exist looks like failure to comply with discovery to a hostile judge. Do you have specific examples of his failure to provide things that he did have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:51:45 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How much did he win? Enough to bankrupt CNN yet? Otherwise they are not similar. I don't think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:52:51 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alex Jones is more news than MSNBC? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second off, the legit exact defense was used successfully by Rachel Maddow. . Actually, that case is quite different. She made one off-hand comment on one show about OAN being “paid Russian propaganda” (or something like that) in specific reference to a news story on the Daily Beast that one of the OAN journalists was literally working for a Russian government-owned news agency, IIRC. It was one comment on one show, specifically related to a story (from another news organization). Sure, it was an exaggeration because obviously not everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia, but the fact that one of their journalists apparently was, at least gave the statement (exaggerated as it was) a clear connection to reality. Her legal defense essentially had two parts. 1) she didn’t make the claim about the guy being paid by Russia, she was just reporting on a news story by the Daily Beast 2) her show is NOT a news show, but a political commentary show, so nobody should be surprised at some level of sarcasm, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. As such, anyone watching her show would have clearly understood that she wasn’t actually making a claim that everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia. Alex Jones, on the other hand, claims that he IS providing news, and claims that he is providing facts/truth. That makes it less credible for him to claim “oh, I am just a commentator/entertainer, so you can’t believe anything I say” Second, he didn’t just make one off-hand comment on one show. He repeatedly made this claim, over and over again on his show. If Rachel Maddow had kept repeating her ridiculous exaggeration over and over again over the next days and weeks, and started to claim that EVERYONE at OAN was being paid by Russia (in other words, the kind of thing Alex Jones was doing), then the defamation case against her would absolutely have been successful, and her defense would not have worked. So yes, the defense is similar - but the situation is very different, IMO. Alex Jones is more news than MSNBC? That's like asking if a unicorn can have viable offspring with a leprechaun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:54:14 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:54:30 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's like asking if a unicorn can have viable offspring with a leprechaun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second off, the legit exact defense was used successfully by Rachel Maddow. . Actually, that case is quite different. She made one off-hand comment on one show about OAN being “paid Russian propaganda” (or something like that) in specific reference to a news story on the Daily Beast that one of the OAN journalists was literally working for a Russian government-owned news agency, IIRC. It was one comment on one show, specifically related to a story (from another news organization). Sure, it was an exaggeration because obviously not everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia, but the fact that one of their journalists apparently was, at least gave the statement (exaggerated as it was) a clear connection to reality. Her legal defense essentially had two parts. 1) she didn’t make the claim about the guy being paid by Russia, she was just reporting on a news story by the Daily Beast 2) her show is NOT a news show, but a political commentary show, so nobody should be surprised at some level of sarcasm, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. As such, anyone watching her show would have clearly understood that she wasn’t actually making a claim that everyone at OAN was being paid by Russia. Alex Jones, on the other hand, claims that he IS providing news, and claims that he is providing facts/truth. That makes it less credible for him to claim “oh, I am just a commentator/entertainer, so you can’t believe anything I say” Second, he didn’t just make one off-hand comment on one show. He repeatedly made this claim, over and over again on his show. If Rachel Maddow had kept repeating her ridiculous exaggeration over and over again over the next days and weeks, and started to claim that EVERYONE at OAN was being paid by Russia (in other words, the kind of thing Alex Jones was doing), then the defamation case against her would absolutely have been successful, and her defense would not have worked. So yes, the defense is similar - but the situation is very different, IMO. Alex Jones is more news than MSNBC? That's like asking if a unicorn can have viable offspring with a leprechaun. I have to see if I can find the video where he says the globalists are going to turn everyone's power off and then activate the boogaloos and start blowing up everything and then everyone who is right of center gets arrested while idiots cheer It was a great rant |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:10:00 PM EST
[#22]
Boogaloo: activate
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:11:19 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Each case stands on its own and what you are pointing out is utterly irrelevant to whether Alex Jones defamed the parents of dead children. "They did it and got away with it." Isn't a valid legal defense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How much did he win? Enough to bankrupt CNN yet? Otherwise they are not similar. I don't think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Unequal application of the law is tyranny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:15:55 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boogaloo: activate Yep. He views them as state assets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:19:44 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unequal application of the law is tyranny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:26:24 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:33:37 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It's literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Most people get tripped up on what #1 and #4 actually mean. There is also a different standard for people that are public figures and private figures. If the person is a voluntary public figure, they must prove that the speaker acted with actual malice, not that the statement was merely false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 1:55:27 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Most people get tripped up on what #1 and #4 actually mean. There is also a different standard for people that are public figures and private figures. If the person is a voluntary public figure, they must prove that the speaker acted with actual malice, not that the statement was merely false. I briefly looked into whether or not it was possible to sue the news organization that ran the headline below (after Lobby Day 2020) - but even though I believe they smeared me and others with the label of "white supremacist" there's not enough for a successful suit. While the headline of "white supremacists" certainly IMPLIES that the picture shown is of the alleged white supremacists, they never actually come out and say it. Furthermore, I didn't suffer any harm from it. So yeah, #1 and #4 definitely. If they had directly said "here is a picture of some white supremacists" and I had lost my job as a result, THEN I could presumably have successfully sued them ... and retired early. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:02:20 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I briefly looked into whether or not it was possible to sue the news organization that ran the headline below (after Lobby Day 2020) - but even though I believe they smeared me and others with the label of "white supremacist" there's not enough for a successful suit. While the headline of "white supremacists" certainly IMPLIES that the picture shown is of the alleged white supremacists, they never actually come out and say it. Furthermore, I didn't suffer any harm from it. So yeah, #1 and #4 definitely. If they had directly said "here is a picture of some white supremacists" and I had lost my job as a result, THEN I could presumably have successfully sued them ... and retired early. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1715/Independent2-17-2020-2355772.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:09:36 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I briefly looked into whether or not it was possible to sue the news organization that ran the headline below (after Lobby Day 2020) - but even though I believe they smeared me and others with the label of "white supremacist" there's not enough for a successful suit. While the headline of "white supremacists" certainly IMPLIES that the picture shown is of the alleged white supremacists, they never actually come out and say it. Furthermore, I didn't suffer any harm from it. So yeah, #1 and #4 definitely. If they had directly said "here is a picture of some white supremacists" and I had lost my job as a result, THEN I could presumably have successfully sued them ... and retired early. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1715/Independent2-17-2020-2355772.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Most people get tripped up on what #1 and #4 actually mean. There is also a different standard for people that are public figures and private figures. If the person is a voluntary public figure, they must prove that the speaker acted with actual malice, not that the statement was merely false. I briefly looked into whether or not it was possible to sue the news organization that ran the headline below (after Lobby Day 2020) - but even though I believe they smeared me and others with the label of "white supremacist" there's not enough for a successful suit. While the headline of "white supremacists" certainly IMPLIES that the picture shown is of the alleged white supremacists, they never actually come out and say it. Furthermore, I didn't suffer any harm from it. So yeah, #1 and #4 definitely. If they had directly said "here is a picture of some white supremacists" and I had lost my job as a result, THEN I could presumably have successfully sued them ... and retired early. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1715/Independent2-17-2020-2355772.jpg My absolute favorite was some shitlib rag like a Washington Post editorial published a picture of a white guy and a black guy with guns and big smiles. I promise, absolutely promise the article said "The disturbing trend of multi-racial white supremacy" Edit: here is a Google search I just did 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:14:44 PM EST
[#31]
Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down.
From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:18:03 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean?   Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:27:23 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:32:37 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:33:39 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. If the federal government pissed on, humiliated, and belittled a bunch of grieving parents, then I would say yes. I also have no pity for the Westborough Baptist church, for the same reason. Fuck those people too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:34:15 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. I didn't wanna state the glaringly obvious, but yeah that nails it. Not to mention news outlets, made for TV movies about the event, etc etc etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:34:32 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. You do understand what defamation is, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:35:04 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the federal government pissed on, humiliated, and belittled a bunch of grieving parents, then I would say yes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. If the federal government pissed on, humiliated, and belittled a bunch of grieving parents, then I would say yes. Mostly they pissed on their memory after they murdered them all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:36:31 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do understand what defamation is, right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. You do understand what defamation is, right? I certainly do. The list is extremely long as to the people the MSM has defamed, and yet they still exist and continue the behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:37:32 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mostly they pissed on their memory after they murdered them all. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, pissing on the parents of dead kids earns you getting shut down. From a purely moral standpoint, he's getting what he deserves. As for filing for bankruptcy, that's just capitalism at work. Some win the game, some lose the game. like Waco, you mean? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/thatwasdifferent-667.gif I might be showing my age, but I was too young for that. Could you enlighten me on what that was, and how it relates to my statement? I think he is implying the federal government could be sued out of existence if that was the criteria. If the federal government pissed on, humiliated, and belittled a bunch of grieving parents, then I would say yes. Mostly they pissed on their memory after they murdered them all. I don't know about all those details. But in my opinion, the Westboro Baptist church has shown an equal lack of basic human decency. Picketing soldier's funerals and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:37:56 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I certainly do. The list is extremely long as to the people the MSM has defamed, and yet they still exist and continue the behavior. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. You do understand what defamation is, right? I certainly do. The list is extremely long as to the people the MSM has defamed, and yet they still exist and continue the behavior. Then they are free to sue them at whim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 2:39:23 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. He views them as state assets. Their ringleader, alias Father Boog, aka Goose, aka Dutchmark, is a psychopolitical master, after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 5:24:11 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh shit have you guys seen the samurai one? The samurai one? https://i.ibb.co/5skLjKF/1639091574387.gif Bro you're going to lose it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMPjau6m_xULol, he said "ME WANT COOKIE ?? !" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 6:05:50 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, he said "ME WANT COOKIE ?? !" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh shit have you guys seen the samurai one? The samurai one? https://i.ibb.co/5skLjKF/1639091574387.gif Bro you're going to lose it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMPjau6m_xULol, he said "ME WANT COOKIE ?? !" He makes me laugh more than any professional comedian.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 6:07:06 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then they are free to sue them at whim. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. You do understand what defamation is, right? I certainly do. The list is extremely long as to the people the MSM has defamed, and yet they still exist and continue the behavior. Then they are free to sue them at whim. Suing costs money. Who funded this lawsuit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 6:13:30 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Suing costs money. Who funded this lawsuit? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don’t think anyone is saying free speech is absolute. We are pissed off that this is clearly a targeted attack on someone that is extremely hostile to the current regime. These tactics, along with doxxing, like LibsofTicTock, can and will be used against the opposition of those in power. Alex Jones broke the law by engaging in unprotected speech, and he deserves to be held accountable. Just like CNN being sued by Nick Sandman. It’s literally that simple. No tin foil required. Oh please. The MSM would be out of business tomorrow if telling lies was punished. You do understand what defamation is, right? I certainly do. The list is extremely long as to the people the MSM has defamed, and yet they still exist and continue the behavior. Then they are free to sue them at whim. Suing costs money. Who funded this lawsuit? You don't think there are conservative groups who would fund a lawsuit against CNN or MSNBC if the case was strong enough? Are there cases that you can cite the meet the definition of defamation perpetrated by the MSM? You keep on complaining about their lies, but are awfully thin on the details about how that magically makes those lies defamation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 6:13:58 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Suing costs money. Who funded this lawsuit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:07:35 PM EST
[#48]
Look what arrived a day early.
 Thanks Alex |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 11:42:29 AM EST
[#49]
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Alex-Jones-will-talk-to-gov-about-Jan-6-wants-immunity/5-2547149/?r=98331789&page=1&anc=98331789#i98331789
Jones looking to help the Feds with 1/6 prosecutions lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 11:45:10 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Alex-Jones-will-talk-to-gov-about-Jan-6-wants-immunity/5-2547149/?r=98331789&page=1&anc=98331789#i98331789 Jones looking to help the Feds with 1/6 prosecutions lol IT'S OVER FOR THE GLOBALISTS NOW |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
