Alex Jones admits to defrauding bankruptcy court

[craftsman 1,045]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Rittenhouse is welcome to try to sue Biden, but it will be difficult to prove in court most likely.  He didn’t call him racist, and did not directly call him a white supremacist.  He said Trump failed to disavow white supremacists and posted an accompanying video in which a brief clip of Rittenhouse was shown.

Sounds like Rittenhouse is planning some defamation suits though, so I’m sure he is thankful for the ability to do so.

This is incorrect. Fix it to reflect the truth. 

[TimHauck 2,905]

15 minutes ago, craftsman said:

This is incorrect. Fix it to reflect the truth. 

It’s correct, but thanks for your concern

[MDC 7,470]

10 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

I was speaking in GENERAL terms about Alex Jones.  I'm sure hes said truthful things, and I am sure he's said wholly wrong things.  I was not in any way saying what he said about Sandy Hook was true.  See how they do that folks, just like the media?  Just focking liars misrepresenting stuff. 

The point of my post was that he says shiot for ratings, right or wrong.  

I wasn’t deliberately misrepresenting you. It was a weird thing to say on Page 1 of a thread about Alex Jones claiming Sandy Hook was a fake.

Obviously Jones just says shiit for ratings. In this case the defamatory things he said about the Sandy Hook victims caused their parents years of additional suffering. I hope they take him to the cleaners.

I don’t know why you and others want to go to bat for this POS.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Much of the usual cuck girl logic in here.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

59 minutes ago, MDC said:

I wasn’t deliberately misrepresenting you. It was a weird thing to say on Page 1 of a thread about Alex Jones claiming Sandy Hook was a fake.

Obviously Jones just says shiit for ratings. In this case the defamatory things he said about the Sandy Hook victims caused their parents years of additional suffering. I hope they take him to the cleaners.

I don’t know why you and others want to go to bat for this POS.  

Sure you do, he connected to the right and the immediate reaction before any research or reflection is to circle the wagons and defend.  For more examples see the Support the Troops/PACT Act thread I started. 

[Horseman 2,470]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

 

I don’t know why you and others want to go to bat for this POS.  

Intelligent people can distinguish the difference between defending him versus defending his rights so you sound dumb when you keep repeating this. 

[MDC 7,470]

5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Intelligent people can distinguish the difference between defending him versus defending his rights so you sound dumb when you keep repeating this. 

Intelligent people also know Alex Jones’ right to free speech doesn’t include a right to not be sued for defamation.

He lost, btw.   

[listen2me 23 1,873]

 

 

[Horseman 2,470]

23 minutes ago, MDC said:

Intelligent people also know Alex Jones’ right to free speech doesn’t include a right to not be sued for defamation.

He lost, btw.   

You sure about that? 4 million out of requested 150 from a guy who pulls in 50 million a year. Thats equivalent of a speeding ticket. Hell that dig on Epstein and the Clinton's was worth 4 mill.  Here is what Jones had to say. 

Quote

 

Jones himself celebrated the jury’s decision, calling it a “major victory for truth,” in a video posted online to his conspiratorial outlet Infowars.

“They thought they would shut us down,” Jones said. “But that jury understood the truth and resisted the propaganda.”

 

 

[Strike 5,565]

Just now, Horseman said:

You sure about that? 4 million out of requested 150 from a guy who pulls in 50 million a year. Thats equivalent of a speeding ticket. Hell that dig on Epstein and the Clinton's was worth 4 mill.  Here is what Jones had to say. 

 

Of course he's saying that.  He's saving face.  But the 4 million was compensatory damages.  The same jury will now decide how much in punitive damages to award so the total judgment will be much higher.  And, he has a bunch of other lawsuits similar to this one.  If he loses 10 million in, let's say 10 lawsuits, that's 100 million.  That's gonna leave a mark.

[MDC 7,470]

24 minutes ago, Horseman said:

You sure about that? 4 million out of requested 150 from a guy who pulls in 50 million a year. Thats equivalent of a speeding ticket. Hell that dig on Epstein and the Clinton's was worth 4 mill.  Here is what Jones had to say. 

 

Strike beat me to it - Jones stands to lose a lot more than $4m. 

You should pick a better free speech champion.  

[Horseman 2,470]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Strike beat me to it - Jones stands to lose a lot more than $4m. 

You should pick a better free speech champion.  

  4 million was worth the publicity alone.  

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

  4 million was worth the publicity alone.  

Do you think this is going to gain him more fans?  I think it just proves how full of crap he is.  I suppose there are a lot of gullible people in the world that love to listen to made up stuff though.

[Horseman 2,470]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Do you think this is going to gain him more fans?  I think it just proves how full of crap he is.  I suppose there are a lot of gullible people in the world that love to listen to made up stuff though.

I could care less.  It's trumpeting this as a victory that is funny - those people are equally gullible. 

[MDC 7,470]

11 minutes ago, Horseman said:

  4 million was worth the publicity alone.  

Dude is going to lose way more than $4m and had to admit on the stand that he lied about murdered school children. He’ll probably face many more lawsuits and could face charges for perjury and fraud. 

Big win for Alex.  

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

18 minutes ago, Horseman said:

I could care less.  It's trumpeting this as a victory that is funny - those people are equally gullible. 

How much less do you think you could care, 10%, 20%...give us a range.

[Horseman 2,470]

9 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

How much less do you think you could care, 10%, 20%...give us a range.

0%  The term is used for complete indifference.  Try consulting a dictionary.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

0%  The term is used for complete indifference.  Try consulting a dictionary.

[Horseman 2,470]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

0%  The term is used for complete indifference.  Try consulting a dictionary.

I'm guessing you LITERALLY think you burned me too. 

[MDC 7,470]

I’m not defending Alex Jones! I’m defending his right to baselessly accuse people of fabricating their child’s murder as part of a gun control conspiracy, without being sued for defamation.

- the Geek Club  

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

15 minutes ago, Horseman said:

0%  The term is used for complete indifference.  Try consulting a dictionary.

You know that you said it incorrectly, right?  What you meant to say is that you could NOT care less.  This is why Honcho is giving you crap.

[Horseman 2,470]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m not defending Alex Jones! I’m defending his right to baselessly accuse people of fabricating their child’s murder as part of a gun control conspiracy, without being sued for defamation.

- the Geek Club  

Jones is a POS.  But he ought to be able to say whatever he wants on his podcast.  Stick and stones crybaby.  

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, Horseman said:

Jones is a POS.  But he ought to be able to say whatever he wants on his podcast.  Stick and stones crybaby.  

What sucks is that people will believe a lot of the nonsense he says.  He is a stain on our society.

[Horseman 2,470]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You know that you said it incorrectly, right?  What you meant to say is that you could NOT care less.  This is why Honcho is giving you crap.

Only idiots think this is some sort of gotcha moment on a foking forum.

Quote

"Couldn't care less" and "could care less" are both used to mean someone doesn't care at all, but English teachers and grammarians will say that only "couldn't care less" is correct, so that is what you should use in formal or academic writing.

 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, Horseman said:

Only idiots think this is some sort of gotcha moment on a foking forum.

 

It's not even a grammar thing.  What you said didn't mean what you wanted it to mean.  You basically said that you have more f*cks to give about it.

[Horseman 2,470]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

It's not even a grammar thing.  What you said didn't mean what you wanted it to mean.  You basically said that you have more f*cks to give about it.

I see you're one of the idiots.

Quote

"Couldn't care less" and "could care less" are both used to mean someone doesn't care at all

 

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

10 hours ago, Horseman said:

Only idiots think this is some sort of gotcha moment on a foking forum.

 

"I could care less" is only becoming accepted because of ignorant people incorrectly saying it.  Up there with saying I literally could eat a horse.

10 hours ago, Horseman said:

Jones is a POS.  But he ought to be able to say whatever he wants on his podcast.  Stick and stones crybaby.  

Defamation is illegal. Just like if he went on his podcast and told people to commit crimes.  So, no, he shouldn't be able to say whatever he wants on his podcast, there are limits to free speech. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

I see you're one of the idiots.

 

Only because people are too stupid to say it the correct way.

[Horseman 2,470]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

"I could care less" is only becoming accepted because of ignorant people incorrectly saying it.  Up there with saying I literally could eat a horse.

"that will teach you to leave your car unlocked"

You understand perfectly well what that means right, or are you foking retaarded?

When in debate correcting grammar is a red herring, ad hominem fallacy, attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. A deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Congratulations moron.

 

 

[MDC 7,470]

13 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Jones is a POS.  But he ought to be able to say whatever he wants on his podcast.  Stick and stones crybaby.  

He ought to be able to slander people without facing legal action?  

Apparently the courts disagree.  

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

4 minutes ago, Horseman said:

"that will teach you to leave your car unlocked"

You understand perfectly well what that means right, or are you foking retaarded?

When in debate correcting grammar is a red herring, ad hominem fallacy, attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. A deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Congratulations moron.

 

 

I wasn't debating you though, enough people here had already stated how illogical it was to take the side that you support the right of AJ to do something illegal.

I was trying to help you sound less ignorant, when taking up ridiculous positions. 

[Horseman 2,470]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I wasn't debating you though, enough people here had already stated how illogical it was to take the side that you support the right of AJ to do something illegal.

I was trying to help you sound less ignorant, when taking up ridiculous positions. 

Now you're just a foking liar.  Shall we say pulling an Alex Jones.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

12 hours ago, wiffleball said:

the height of his influence in 2018, Jones boasted an audience of about 1.4 million daily visits to his websites and social media accounts, according to The New York Times. And from 2015-18, Jones’ Infowars store raked in more than $50 million annually, HuffPost reported.

Wouldn't be shocked if 1.0M were liberals like the NYT and HuffPost constantly checking to see how many hits his website is getting.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

46 minutes ago, Horseman said:

"that will teach you to leave your car unlocked"

You understand perfectly well what that means right, or are you foking retaarded?

When in debate correcting grammar is a red herring, ad hominem fallacy, attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. A deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Congratulations moron.

 

 

Well said. Here here. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What sucks is that people will believe a lot of the nonsense he says.  He is a stain on our society.

No, what sucks is that even more people believe the nonsense that the government says.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

No, what sucks is that even more people believe the nonsense that the government says.

Well, sure, but what does that have to do with Alex Jones?

[Horseman 2,470]

48 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I wasn't debating you though, enough people here had already stated how illogical it was to take the side that you support the right of AJ to do something illegal.

I was trying to help you sound less ignorant, when taking up ridiculous positions. 

Otherwise known as trolling.  

[Cdub100 3,925]

https://rumble.com/v1estvn-alex-jones-mic-drop.html

[Masshole 642]

On 8/4/2022 at 11:11 AM, Mike Honcho said:

Mass, your smell-test post indicates you don't know much or any of what actually happened in this case, so I'm not going to bother even wasting a bullet with you,  never mind throwing the gun.

OK, since you seem to know so much more about the case than me - maybe you can educate me.    I've tried to look into it and I was a bit surprised to see how hard it was to find the actual evidence that people were harassing parents, what actually happened, and that it was clear they were doing so as AJ listener/fans.     But you guys are so certain of the things you say about the case - maybe you can point me to where I can see that?     You keep saying "did you read the article?" - I did.   I didn't see where the articles presented any actual evidence of the incidents or direct linkage to AJ. 

Here's what I have found that can be backed up.  Feel free to poke holes in anything I have wrong:

• 2 parents of 1 child and another of a different child have taken AJ to court over this
• I read there were other parents and other cases but I haven't seen any actual add'l cases referenced that would corroborate that
• I couldn't find any info about any investigations into the harassment incidents.  I found that odd because I would have thought there would have been significant investigations
• The only "verification" I can find that the incidents happened was that the parents testified that they happened
• The "guns fired at their house" incident was one of the parents in the lawsuit said they heard gunfire and that they then heard someone say AJ's name and "Infowars".  I couldn't find anything that said the PD found bullet casings, holes, etc.  Or that there were any other witness who would corroborate that they heard gunfire
• I couldn't find anywhere where you could see or hear any of the supposed messages that were sent to the parents.   I know phone calls don't get recorded.   
• While often repeated, especially here, I haven't seen any actual evidence that Jones said that SH "didn't happen"
• It's been said that AJ doxxed the parents and published their info.   I can't say that didn't happen, I just couldn't find any evidence that it did
• AJ did say that he thought SH could be a false flag operation to drive gun control measures.   That is where the parents as "crisis actors" thing came from
• AJ lost his first case because he didn't show up for it and defaulted.        

The disconnect here isn't surprising.   I am skeptical of everything I hear and see - especially if it is coming from our gov't and/or is something that the MSM seems to be lining up behind.   I also question the consistency of the application of defamation cases.    You take gov't and/or MSM lining up behind something as proof that it happened or of their version of what happened.   We couldn't be further apart in that regard.    

AJ is going to pay a lot of fines and I am OK with that.   If you are going to blow gas about an incident where many children were killed - you better have some solid evidence/facts to back that up.  Even then you should probably shut up for a while anyway.   But I think that is more of a "good taste" or "class" type argument - not a legal argument.  And AJ cooked himself anyway when his own communications showed he really didn't believe that stuff anyway. 

If they could find someone who would admit to it or specific provable evidence that someone harassed these parents and they did that at least in part because of what AJ said - then that's a stronger legal case.    But again, does that mean the cop who stopped the girl from stabbing another girl can sue Lebron James for posting his picture to millions of his followers and saying "you're next"?    I struggle with the intellectual consistency that allows that to happen unchecked but wants AJ drawn and quartered for this.       

Is it so outlandish to suppose that the SH parents, grieving and anguished, needed a bad guy to direct their hate and emotions towards?   And with Adam Lanza dead, AJ made himself a convenient target?    Would it be beyond parents who are emotional and angry to push their stories beyond what really happened to ensure that they "get" that bad guy? 

And for the obligatory addendum that seems to be required here:  I don't listen to Infowars, never have.  I don't follow AJ in any way.   I have only heard him once or twice when he did Tim Pool or Joe Rogan's podcasts.   He was energetic and opinionated but I never had any desire to follow him more.    I know it's hard for you to understand that someone could question what is happening while not being a fan of the person that it is happening to.