"Would you like to buy a piece of Alex Jones?"

[WildcatFan1982]

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

I didn’t think so pussy

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

No, you’re defending lies against dead children. Your too ignorant to know that’s wrong

LOL. Like LiberL’s give a flick about dead kids. Research Jocelyn Nungary since i promise you don't know her name. She died slowly and in complete terror just so Liberfilth could import new voters. I’ve never seen a more sanctimonious POS than today’s Liberal.

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

You apparently think way too much of yourself, I’ll buy you a beer on Saturday. No fighting, I promise. But I will tell you what it’s like to look into the eyes of a parent who lost a child.

He does think his shat doesn’t stink when it actually wreaks, so Ill give you that.

 

[Someguywhodoesntlikeyou]

Why do people want to act like children? Threatening to fight someone over a message board.

This country is losing its mind and its soul over this stuff. You use to be able to disagree with someone without threatening them and people who said crazy things in public were ridiculed and dismissed as crackpots and you moved on with your day.

I read something recently that Tip O’Neil once said about governing. You fight like hell during the day and then at night you share a bottle of scotch and get things done.

 

[KAB Cats]

LOL. Like LiberL’s give a flick about dead kids. Research Jocelyn Nungary since i promise you don't know her name. She died slowly and in complete terror just so Liberfilth could import new voters. I’ve never seen a more sanctimonious POS than today’s Liberal.

You’re in full political hijack mode of this thread, but I listened to a Lex Fridman interview with Vivek Ramaswamy recently, and he talked a lot about how many conservatives, particularly on the internet, only talk about what they “disagree” with “liberals” on.

While obviously you’re trolling intentionally here, I find it interesting that about 95% of your posts are about “liberals”, and not about any kind of vision of philosophy for conservativism, other than the absence of whatever you deem “liberal”.

Thank you in advance. Im sure you will take this to heart.

 

[RunninRichie]

You’re in full political hijack mode of this thread, but I listened to a Lex Fridman interview with Vivek Ramaswamy recently, and he talked a lot about how many conservatives, particularly on the internet, only talk about what they “disagree” with “liberals” on.

While obviously you’re trolling intentionally here, I find it interesting that about 95% of your posts are about “liberals”, and not about any kind of vision of philosophy for conservativism, other than the absence of whatever you deem “liberal”.

Thank you in advance. Im sure you will take this to heart.

I get called liberal by auth-right, and called a republican by auth-left. The joys of being a libertarian.

 

[fr33burd]

So you think the 1st amendment should be abolished I take it.... Bold stance.

The 1st amendment grants you freedom of speech. That is all. It does not protect you from the consequences of that free speech. Thus libel and defamation. It's not complicated.

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

The 1st amendment grants you freedom of speech. That is all. It does not protect you from the consequences of that free speech. Thus libel and defamation. It's not complicated.

LOL. Liberal's can say anything they want with no repurcussions yet they try to ruin the lives of republicans for anything they say that differs. Liberals are the lowest form of life and what's funny is how angry they are now that Musk and others have totally exposed their lack of a spine. Funny to watch Liberals squirm like the spineless cowards they are.

 

[RunninRichie]

The 1st amendment grants you freedom of speech. That is all. It does not protect you from the consequences of that free speech. Thus libel and defamation. It's not complicated.

The constitution does not ''grant'' anybody anything. It puts our natural ''god-given'' rights on paper, to protect them from government. The rights in the bill of rights, are god-given. And thus cannot be infringed on. It's amazing how few understand this.

 

[RunninRichie]

LOL. Liberal's can say anything they want with no repurcussions yet they try to ruin the lives of republicans for anything they say that differs. Liberals are the lowest form of life and what's funny is how angry they are now that Musk and others have totally exposed their lack of a spine. Funny to watch Liberals squirm like the spineless cowards they are.

You should get some help.

 

[UKnCincy]

The constitution does not ''grant'' anybody anything. It puts our natural ''god-given'' rights on paper, to protect them from government. The rights in the bill of rights, are god-given. And thus cannot be infringed on. It's amazing how few understand this.

The God who gives the right to free speech is the same God who commands “thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

To suggest that a “God-given” right is therefore also a limitless right is not at all consistent with the context under which that right was enshrined in the Constitution.

The right to free speech is appropriately limited when that speech infringes upon the rights of another. If someone lies to another person in order to obtain that person’s money, they have committed fraud and should be punished. Free speech has never, and should never, permit speech that defrauds.

It’s the same for perjury, and the same when someone maliciously lies to defame another person. These are limited instances where it is appropriate for people to face consequences for intentionally making false factual statements.

 

[RunninRichie]

The God who gives the right to free speech is the same God who commands “thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

To suggest that a “God-given” right is therefore also a limitless right is not at all consistent with the context under which that right was enshrined in the Constitution.

The right to free speech is appropriately limited when that speech infringes upon the rights of another. If someone lies to another person in order to obtain that person’s money, they have committed fraud and should be punished. Free speech has never, and should never, permit speech that defrauds.

It’s the same for perjury, and the same when someone maliciously lies to defame another person. These are limited instances where it is appropriate for people to face consequences for intentionally making false factual statements.

God given means natural rights. You’re disagreeing with the founders here. The point is, we are born with human rights, and they are enshrined in the constitution to protect them from the government.

 

[UKnCincy]

God given means natural rights. You’re disagreeing with the founders here. The point is, we are born with human rights, and they are enshrined in the constitution to protect them from the government.

I’m not disagreeing with the founders. As I mentioned, the framers never viewed free speech as a limitless right.

 

[RunninRichie]

I’m not disagreeing with the founders. As I mentioned, the framers never viewed free speech as a limitless right.

Neither did I.

 

[UKnCincy]

Neither did I.

Then what limitations on speech do you consider to be appropriate?

 

[screwduke1]

I'm no fan of Alex Jones by any means but what has been done to him is absurd. You can't convince me that what he has done is worthy of being sued for a billion dollars. It's nuts.

 

[UKnCincy]

I'm no fan of Alex Jones by any means but what has been done to him is absurd. You can't convince me that what he has done is worthy of being sued for a billion dollars. It's nuts.

It’s not absurd if you’re familiar with not only the defamation, but also Jones’ behavior during the trial. A perfect example of this is his behavior in March of 2022.

Jones was ordered to sit for depositions to occur on March 23 and 24. On March 21, Jones filed a motion for a protective order stating that a doctor had ordered him to go immediately to the hospital for a medical emergency. Jones refused, so the doctor provided a note for the protective order stating Jones needed to remain home under direct supervision of a doctor and shouldn’t attend the depositions scheduled for later that week.

The next day, March 22, there was an emergency hearing to consider the protective order. Jones’ attorney stated that Jones was currently at home and that the condition was serious enough that the doctor was physically present in Jones’ house.

Here’s the best part. When the plaintiff’s attorney was given the opportunity to speak, he informed the court that they should visit the Infowars website. What they would see, is that at that very moment, Jones was not at home. He was at his studio doing a live broadcast.

So Jones was caught red handed in another lie and attempting to ignore yet another court order. The judge denied the motion and ordered Jones to appear for the March 23 and 24 depositions.

On March 23, the plaintiff’s attorneys arrived at the location in Austin for the deposition. Despite knowing he was caught in another lie, Jones still had the nerve to not show up. Another emergency hearing was held that afternoon, with the judge reiterating the order for Jones to appear the next day to be deposed.

On March 24, the plaintiff’s attorneys arrived at the location again. And again Jones never showed up. So the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt the next day.

That was Jones’ approach the entire time. If someone is going to compulsively lie to the court, repeatedly ignore court orders, defame victims who the jury is likely to sympathize with, as well as continue to insult the victims during the trial, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent that the law will allow.

Every single thing Jones did during the trial was shockingly egregious.

 

[Nightwish84]

I'm surprised no one has said "if it can happen to him, it can happen to you!" yet. That's a classic line that's been used in the recent past to stoke fear and try to get folks to stick up for national bullshitters. It's not hard being the opposite of someone like Alex Jones and I'm pretty confident that most Americans are disgusted by him.

 

[hmt5000]

Robert Barnes was briefly Alex Jones’ attorney on the Lewis case. You should also know that Barnes was fired by Jones. In an affidavit submitted by Jones himself in the Lafferty case, Jones informed the court that he fired Barnes because Barnes had, in Jones’ opinion, botched discovery.

Why on earth would you consider Robert Barnes to be a credible person to discuss the Jones case?

Jones consistently refused to comply with discovery requests, and at one point, Jones himself stated that Barnes was part of the problem. But even after firing Barnes, Jones continued to completely ignore discovery requests.

In terms of posting video, most of Jones’ videos were either taken down by the various social media platforms or by Jones’ staff under orders from Jones to delete evidence.

If you want to know what Jones was saying, then I suggest you read the court filings or watch some of the court room testimony. I suggest you also read both the Texas and Connecticut default judgments. The judges make it crystal clear that those decisions were based on Jones’ noncompliance with the discovery process.

When someone stubbornly refuses to fulfill their pre-trial obligations, default judgments are on the table. Jones has no one to blame but himself for that.

Stop letting YouTube videos tell you what to think and start learning how to read up on the facts yourself.

OK.... How about Elon Musk saying that he would never let Jones back on X because of all the stuff you said.... Then someone talked Elon into having some attorneys look into the case and Elon let him back on X. It's almost like the narrative is far worse than the actual crime.

 

[hmt5000]

I'm surprised no one has said "if it can happen to him, it can happen to you!" yet. That's a classic line that's been used in the recent past to stoke fear and try to get folks to stick up for national bullshitters. It's not hard being the opposite of someone like Alex Jones and I'm pretty confident that most Americans are disgusted by him.

Well I mean... He was the first one to be kicked off YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and people said that, and people like you said "nuh uh"... and then about 30000 people got suspended for really insane reasons. A feminist got banned for saying "men aren't women though".... banned from 2 social media outlets.

I feel like you'd be tired of being wrong this year and would wait til next year to start telling us again.

 

[UKnCincy]

I will say this. The trial was fascinating from the perspective of how many times there were moments where you thought “you just can’t make this stuff up.”

• Jones having to explain to the judge that the image of her engulfed in flames he aired on his show wasn’t intended to mean she should be hurt, but rather that she was consuming justice in flames
• Jones having to look at the jury after the plantiff’s attorney just finished played a video clip of Jones saying that liberals had rigged jury selection to ensure he received a jury of blue collar people who had no clue what planet they were on
• Jones insisting that he was sorry and didn’t mean to hurt anyone, and then at the exact moment Neil Heslin is testifying about what Jones put him through, Jones was live on his show saying Heslin was slow, “on the spectrum”, and being manipulated
• Jones accusing the judge of cooperating with pedophiles

But the best one had to be when Jones’ attorney accidentally sent a copy of his phone’s contents to the plaintiffs just before trial, and then the plaintiff’s attorney gets to confront Jones on the stand about his perjury.

The moment the attorney tells Jones, “please remember, if you need to assert the fifth amendment, you can,” is absolutely brutal.

 

[hmt5000]

Alex Jones should have no problem appealing to the Supreme Court.

I am sure he will welcome your amicus brief.

So you lose your entire life and the ability to earn money until it makes it to the supreme court and is ruled "maybe" in your favor... if not he starves to death because they literally want all his ways to make money which is weird because the settlement seems to suggest they want him to pay the parents money. If it's not a first amendment issue then why is it more important to shut him up than pay the parents?

 

[RunninRichie]

obligatory

 

[hmt5000]

The 1st amendment grants you freedom of speech. That is all. It does not protect you from the consequences of that free speech. Thus libel and defamation. It's not complicated.

But that mean he pays them money and continues to be able to speak. What they are doing is stopping his ability to speak and make money which means he can't pay the libel claim. You have to choose which one you are arguing for because the court has said they want to shut him up which means the family won't get paid.

 

[UKnCincy]

OK.... How about Elon Musk saying that he would never let Jones back on X because of all the stuff you said.... Then someone talked Elon into having some attorneys look into the case and Elon let him back on X. It's almost like the narrative is far worse than the actual crime.

Is it fair to assume that Musk did not go into any detail outlining the facts of the case and why he came to his conclusion?

Because if that’s the case, I would again suggest that you stop letting people tell you what to think.

 

[hmt5000]

It’s not absurd if you’re familiar with not only the defamation, but also Jones’ behavior during the trial. A perfect example of this is his behavior in March of 2022.

Jones was ordered to sit for depositions to occur on March 23 and 24. On March 21, Jones filed a motion for a protective order stating that a doctor had ordered him to go immediately to the hospital for a medical emergency. Jones refused, so the doctor provided a note for the protective order stating Jones needed to remain home under direct supervision of a doctor and shouldn’t attend the depositions scheduled for later that week.

The next day, March 22, there was an emergency hearing to consider the protective order. Jones’ attorney stated that Jones was currently at home and that the condition was serious enough that the doctor was physically present in Jones’ house.

Here’s the best part. When the plaintiff’s attorney was given the opportunity to speak, he informed the court that they should visit the Infowars website. What they would see, is that at that very moment, Jones was not at home. He was at his studio doing a live broadcast.

So Jones was caught red handed in another lie and attempting to ignore yet another court order. The judge denied the motion and ordered Jones to appear for the March 23 and 24 depositions.

On March 23, the plaintiff’s attorneys arrived at the location in Austin for the deposition. Despite knowing he was caught in another lie, Jones still had the nerve to not show up. Another emergency hearing was held that afternoon, with the judge reiterating the order for Jones to appear the next day to be deposed.

On March 24, the plaintiff’s attorneys arrived at the location again. And again Jones never showed up. So the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt the next day.

That was Jones’ approach the entire time. If someone is going to compulsively lie to the court, repeatedly ignore court orders, defame victims who the jury is likely to sympathize with, as well as continue to insult the victims during the trial, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent that the law will allow.

Every single thing Jones did during the trial was shockingly egregious.

I wonder how much Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse SHOULD have gotten then? I don't understand why you think this is the worst case ever. Most of feel he was guilty of some level of defamation but the $1billion is more than Pharma companies have paid for actually killing people. You do understand he didn't kill anyone right? He didn't actually say anything to the parents. It was reporters who brought his comments to their attn.

Just weird that this is the first time I've seen you get irate over a defamation case when the last 8 years have had tons of insane public comments by much more famous people.

 

[hmt5000]

Is it fair to assume that Musk did not go into any detail outlining the facts of the case and why he came to his conclusion?

Because if that’s the case, I would again suggest that you stop letting people tell you what to think.

OK... Did you actually look into this case or are you just going off a report you heard?

 

[UKnCincy]

OK... Did you actually look into this case or are you just going off a report you heard?

I’ve seen the depositions, the court room testimony and read court filings.

But you didn’t answer my question. Is it fair to assume that Musk didn’t provide any details about the facts of the case, and you simply took his word for it?

 

[UKnCincy]

I wonder how much Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse SHOULD have gotten then? I don't understand why you think this is the worst case ever. Most of feel he was guilty of some level of defamation but the $1billion is more than Pharma companies have paid for actually killing people. You do understand he didn't kill anyone right? He didn't actually say anything to the parents. It was reporters who brought his comments to their attn.

Just weird that this is the first time I've seen you get irate over a defamation case when the last 8 years have had tons of insane public comments by much more famous people.

I’m not irate about anything. But I will point out that those of you defending him do not have any of your facts straight.

For example, reporters were not the ones who brought his comments to the attention of the victims.

When exactly did Leonard Pozner first reach out to Jones to plead with him to stop, and what prompted that outreach?

Also, what did Jones say about that interaction?

 

[hmt5000]

I’ve seen the depositions, the court room testimony and read court filings.

But you didn’t answer my question. Is it fair to assume that Musk didn’t provide any details about the facts of the case, and you simply took his word for it?

My guess is he did his homework and had experts in legal affairs inform him.... But i'm sure you're smarter than he is.

 

[hmt5000]

I’m not irate about anything. But I will point out that those of you defending him do not have any of your facts straight.

For example, reporters were not the ones who brought his comments to the attention of the victims.

When exactly did Leonard Pozner first reach out to Jones to plead with him to stop, and what prompted that outreach?

Also, what did Jones say about that interaction?

You aren't irate?... You said he was evil and vile.... Are you saying that victims watched "Infowars"... LOL. I didn't know he said that stuff until years later and I've seen him as guest on podcast.

Just funny that the guy that predicted 911 and exposed Bohemian Grove ended up losing everything but Brian Steltzer is a multi millionaire and just got his cnn gig back. LOL

 

[UKnCincy]

You aren't irate?... You said he was evil and vile.... Are you saying that victims watched "Infowars"... LOL. I didn't know he said that stuff until years later and I've seen him as guest on podcast.

Just funny that the guy that predicted 911 and exposed Bohemian Grove ended up losing everything but Brian Steltzer is a multi millionaire and just got his cnn gig back. LOL

I stated that what Jones did was evil and vile, because that’s exactly what it was. That’s not me being irate; it’s simply making an accurate assessment of his actions.

If you were aware of the facts, then you would know things like the fact that Leonard Pozner actually listened to Alex Jones prior to Sandy Hook. He reached out to Jones in Jan 2013 asking him to stop.

Other victims, like Robbie Parker, became aware of Jones once the harassment from Jones’ listeners began. Within a couple of weeks of the shooting, Jones’ fans were defacing a Facebook memorial page created to honor their daughter Emilie, who was one of the murdered children.

Your comment that the victims weren’t aware of Jones until reporters mentioned it to them is completely false. It’s an example of how you are getting your information from people who are making things up.

 

[UKnCincy]

View embedded media

My guess is he did his homework and had experts in legal affairs inform him.... But i'm sure you're smarter than he is.

So it’s fair to say, you’re simply taking his word for it, correct?

 

[Bill Cosby]

Are you pulling all off this information from a specific website you could cite, or do you have all this Alex Jones shit committed to memory?

I have a passing curiosity, and generally think a billion dollar judgment for emotional distress is outside the bounds of our Constitution, but have never looked at the details.

 

[UKnCincy]

Are you pulling all off this information from a specific website you could cite, or do you have all this Alex Jones shit committed to memory?

I have a passing curiosity, and generally think a billion dollar judgment for emotional distress is outside the bounds of our Constitution, but have never looked at the details.

You can obtain the court records from either the Travis County District Court (De La Rosa/Pozner, Heslin and Lewis cases) or from the Connecticut Superior Court (Lafferty case).

Case numbers are:

• D-1-GN-18-001842 (De La Rosa/Pozner)​

• D-1-GN-18-001835 / D-1-GN-18-004651 (Heslin)​

• D-1-GN-18-006623 (Lewis)​

• X06-UWY-CV18-6046436-S (Lafferty)​

Plaintiff’s attorneys have posted copies of the full depositions to YouTube, and full recordings of the court hearings can also be found on YouTube.

 

[Bill Cosby]

You can obtain the court records from either the Travis County District Court (De La Rosa/Pozner, Heslin and Lewis cases) or from the Connecticut Superior Court (Lafferty case).

Case numbers are:

• D-1-GN-18-001842 (De La Rosa/Pozner)​

• D-1-GN-18-001835 / D-1-GN-18-004651 (Heslin)​

• D-1-GN-18-006623 (Lewis)​

• X06-UWY-CV18-6046436-S (Lafferty)​

Plaintiff’s attorneys have posted copies of the full depositions to YouTube, and full recordings of the court hearings can also be found on YouTube.

Unless you were an attorney involved in the case, or covering the case closely in the media, it is insane to me you read all of that. Even more so that you’ve apparently retained the intricate details enough to post summaries off the cuff.

Was assuming you were referencing summaries. Not sure if I’m impressed or concerned with the obsession.

 

[UKnCincy]

Unless you were an attorney involved in the case, or covering the case closely in the media, it is insane to me you read all of that. Even more so that you’ve apparently retained the intricate details enough to post summaries off the cuff.

Was assuming you were referencing summaries. Not sure if I’m impressed or concerned with the obsession.

I have a family member who started going down some of rabbit holes during COVID, and it was getting to the point where I was getting concerned about whether I should have him around my family.

At one point, after the default judgement happened and Jones’ penalties trial had started, my family member started ranting about it. He was basically parroting things Jones was saying so I finally said something to him challenging what he was saying.

I offered to hear my family member out if he would be willing to dig into the facts with me to verify what Jones was saying. The Jones case was a particularly useful situation because you could hear directly from Jones and his associates about what they did and how they went about things. It wasn’t like it was coming from a news organization that my family member could easily dismiss as being biased. We had record of Jones’ own words and actions that proved Jones was consistently lying about the trial.

So I pulled together the court filings and pulled up the depositions and testimony, and we went through and fact checked things. It was not something I wanted to do, nor was it a particularly pleasant experience.

However, the decision to potentially cut ties with a family member is not something I take lightly, and given our history together, I felt like I had an obligation to put in some work. I also needed to be able to assess how he responded when confronted with the truth in order to see whether he was willing to reevaluate things or if he was simply more interested in hearing people tell him things he wanted to hear.

 

[Ron Mehico]

I have a family member who started going down some of rabbit holes during COVID, and it was getting to the point where I was getting concerned about whether I should have him around my family.

At one point, after the default judgement happened and Jones’ penalties trial had started, my family member started ranting about it. He was basically parroting things Jones was saying so I finally said something to him challenging what he was saying.

I offered to hear my family member out if he would be willing to dig into the facts with me to verify what Jones was saying. The Jones case was a particularly useful situation because you could hear directly from Jones and his associates about what they did and how they went about things. It wasn’t like it was coming from a news organization that my family member could easily dismiss as being biased. We had record of Jones’ own words and actions that proved Jones was consistently lying about the trial.

So I pulled together the court filings and pulled up the depositions and testimony, and we went through and fact checked things. It was not something I wanted to do, nor was it a particularly pleasant experience.

However, the decision to potentially cut ties with a family member is not something I take lightly, and given our history together, I felt like I had an obligation to put in some work. I also needed to be able to assess how he responded when confronted with the truth in order to see whether he was willing to reevaluate things or if he was simply more interested in hearing people tell him things he wanted to hear.

Did it work and you guys ultimately agreed and made things better, or did it go like your conversation with hmt5000 is going?

 

[UKnCincy]

Did it work and you guys ultimately agreed and made things better, or did it go like your conversation with hmt5000 is going?

I wish I could give you a definitive answer. There were some encouraging things, but he could also just be avoiding making those kind of statements around me.

Unfortunately, I think it was maybe a little bit humiliating for him. As much as I tried to handle things delicately, I think it was impossible to totally avoid wounding his pride. I’ve also avoided getting into this much further because I don’t want it to be a “I’m right and you’re wrong” kind of thing. It was more trying to say that out of his frustration with some things he saw come from traditional media outlets, I thought he had turned to some alternate sources and let his guard down much too quickly.

I guess time will tell.