Alex Jones trial going about how you’d expect

I know I was just answering your question - what risk is there is they didn’t do it? Lots and lots of extra money in lawyers fees.

 

The paragon of lying right wing virtue just got arrested for beating his wife and driving drunk.

Another marker of conservative excellence.

May every dollar the swine and his idiot acolytes
contribute to his insane and hate filled mantra be flushed down the legal and court ordered judgement drain.

 

Yes, actually we do know because we can look at what happened for those that didn't settle. Because most of the media outlets didn't settle and got the thing dismissed for lack of evidence. And the outlets that settled didn't print anything that exposed them to more risk than the other outlets.

 

Okay, time to add something "constructive" in this, um, conversation.



Okay, Alex Jones appears to be too stupid to own too much money (you know the saying, "he who is stupid shall eventually lose their wealth"). I realize there is a fundamental difference between Alabama's and Georgia's "creative" accounting and Auburn's and UNLV's, just as there are "creative" ways to circumvent certain laws to prevent people from driving agendas by defaming innocent persons. The NY Times and the Washington Post are great examples of the former (in the football analogy). However, Jones and his, um, "counsel?" are not even CLOSE to the latter in skills. If I were Jones, I would make sure his ""lawyer" never worked in that profession for the rest of his life. Where did he get his degree, Aflac College with Deon Sanders? SHEESH!!!

Talk about a level of incompetency that ranks right up there with most petty criminals. He deserves to lose his money for no other reason than...having wealth without any brain cells is a BAD idea.

 

New York Times and Washington Post have stellar reputations and they take it seriously. No organization is perfect and the time sensitivity of news pushes the errors higher this era but any attempt to smear them in any way remotely with the Alex Jones case is nonsense.

 

We agree to disagree...again. Google is your friend, if you want it to be.

 

And Google could help you - a lot. You previously stated you got your news from OAN …..

One America News Network - Wikipedia

One America News Network (OANN), also known as One America News (OAN), is a far-right,[17] pro-Trump[26] cable channel
the channel has described itself as one of the "greatest supporters" of Donald Trump.[32]Trump himself has promoted both the network and some of its hosts.[36] The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories

One America News Network's survival in doubt after getting dropped by Verizon

The future is looking bleak for One America News Network, which is being dropped by Verizon, the last major cable operator to run the strident right-wing cable channel.

 

True.

Because we all KNOW that wikipedia is a sanctimonious, purely non-fiction and non-corruptible source of the "truth". Thank you for reminding me of that "fact."

I should just stop trying to find the truth and listen to wikipedia.


And if I can't, then I can always source you. Because, anyone who BELIEVES it is JUST as sanctimonious as those who originally espouse it. Just ask the social "conservatives" who claim to be Christian. They KNOW IT!!!

 

I thought I'd try one more time. You kept going on about Jones shouldn't be singled out because the New York Times, Wash Post,, etc. Want to explain?

 

Your question is obviously too direct and straightforward to be an answered.

 

I provided a source other than Wikipedia- but you know that. Take your own advice and Google your own source of information: OAN. There is a reason it is being dropped from cable TV and that reason is they make stuff up out of whole cloth and are heavily biased.

 

This all is right up there with "Global Warming Absolutions" and "Vaccination and Isolation Mandates". You want some form of proof. And yes, I am setting myself up by implying "well, if you don't get it then I can't help you being less stupid", which is another form of righteousness. I get it. I am just not mentally prepared to tackle this subject to give "the other side" the opportunity to check every inch of my calculations so that the pat answer back is "you used the wrong font so you are WRONG!" It is a silly exercise and I do not wish to do the same dance that all "passive-aggressive agnostics" want to do the way 5 years-olds like to just say "but why?" over and over and over. That is why I said "Google it" It is there...IF you don't go to the foxes for the state-of-the-hen house address.

Now, I was asked very plainly to support my contention that my former Governor, Ralph Northam, said (paraphrased) that, "it is viable for a mother to take some time...AFTER THE CHILD IS BORN...to decide whether to be bothered by the child going forward or not" and he was talking about killing it and not making it a ward of the State. I KNEW where I could find that information and I presented it to their satisfaction, although the "history" of the event has been diminished by revisionists. As they say, history is what the winners say it is.

The NY Times AND the Washington Post have been caught SEVERAL TIMES by the real investigative journalists out here to have both the publishers and editors endorse via non-action or even directives, blatantly non-factual stories in order to further an agenda. Now, were those folks who were harmed by their actions the parents and family members of children who were murdered? Not that I am aware. But to use a line I used for another thread, if the standard for egregious behavior is whether they shot the POTUS or not (recall that line about the FSU dude who was up for the Heisman Trophy), then we are finished. I hate discussions with anyone who can not own the idea that "their side" makes as many "bad decisions" as "the other side" does. It is THE quintessential definition of "righteousness" and it is both silly and childish. And I don't like it on ANY side.

So, in summary, I am not interested in parsing the various minutia of this subject so that I can be caught using the wrong font, as so many folks on "your side" wants to do. I will only add that as long as you want ME to do your homework to "prove" that your sanctimonious sources are less-than, this will go nowhere. Do it yourself. Own the fact that we all make mistakes, and so do those guys. But they MUST be held to a higher standard because there are folks such as yourself who believe EXACTLY what comes out of their mouths. And frankly, no society will stand when that kind of unchecked power has manifested. History says so.

And I know EXACTLY your pat response to this "blather", "see he wouldn't do it, just another righteous idiot who wants things their way."

And my pat reply to you back? "It takes one to know one." That is all I got. I am done.

 

Geez Louiz, are you claiming that there are one or two "bad actors", we have located them and isolated them, and now we can all get back to our cute cat videos on YouTube while "the truth owners" are out there doing all the heavy lifting? Do you have any concept as to what it takes to hijack a free and impartial and skeptical (and resolute) press? We are all corporatists and not "free agents". We want our paychecks and our righteousness is based on the size of it. It is damn sad...and dangerous...but it IS real. I wish the subject was on a thread that is NOT about some silly scumbag who, as I stated in my fairly recent post, is a real idiot and should lose his money for that reason alone.

Stop thinking that some "Grand Poo-ba's" have determined that OAN can not be trusted because the Time Warner Cartel has deemed them "less-fun". Use more brainpower than that. Well, unless YouTube has some REALLY good cat videos. THEN you can be excused. Gotta have priorities.

 

You could have just said "No, I'm not going to explain what I've been posting here. And you can't make me!"
It would have saved a lot of time.

 

Both Sides stretched to the breaking point
OAN = NYT

 

I know I have to emerge from my bunker and perhaps take off my tin foil hat eek:) but I thought I would present this podcast here. Bret Weinstein is an academician (along with his wife) and were effectively drummed out of their professorships because they did not tow the groupthink line. Why am I posting this? because it is a discussion with another academician who has been libeled by Wikipedia. It is a dangerous tale, for those who want to learn rather be spoon fed information by the "experts" like Fauci and Associates. It is long and so I ask anyone who is interested to start at minute 41 and watch until 57 or even 59. It is THE most concise part of it all.

But only if you want to learn. I am quite sure there are a few...on both sides...who do not. I feel sorry for you if you are one of them.



Or to summarize, be afraid, be VERY afraid.

 

Wow. I’m speechless.

 

Just saw a video of his performance in court. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Jones ends up being subject to a substantial fine or a few days in a secure facility for contempt of court.

 

He's been pushing the judge, both in and out of court, to set up an appeal on the grounds she was prejudiced against him. She's been bending over backwards to be as accommodating as possible to avoid this.