The Onion News Network has foreclosed on Alex Jones.

[ZNP]

He says Alex Jones got sued over hurt feelings, implying that Alex Jones did nothing wrong.
If you scroll up, he also said Sandy Hook was a hoax

by all means give us the link to that post, but referring to a lawsuit about slander being due to "hurt feelings" is certainly offensive, it is not equivalent to defending Alex Jones. Slander can often be more than hurt feelings, there can be real harms, for example the person who had to move ten times. But just because someone doesn't have a whole lot of respect for lawsuits for slander does not mean he is defending him.

I have moved over ten times in my life and I know that it is difficult, stressful and expensive. Personally I think 300-500k is more than enough to make someone whole from that kind of aggravation whereas if you divide the 1.5 billion by 26 you get 50-60 million. People complained about the lawsuit against McDonalds for hot coffee as being excessive. I can certainly understand why someone might not support Alex Jones, might think he is guilty and yet might also think the penalty was excessive. So just because someone sees the judgment as excessive is not the same thing as defending Alex Jones.

 

[Dude653]

by all means give us the link to that post, but referring to a lawsuit about slander being due to "hurt feelings" is certainly offensive, it is not equivalent to defending Alex Jones. Slander can often be more than hurt feelings, there can be real harms, for example the person who had to move ten times. But just because someone doesn't have a whole lot of respect for lawsuits for slander does not mean he is defending him.

I have moved over ten times in my life and I know that it is difficult, stressful and expensive. Personally I think 300-500k is more than enough to make someone whole from that kind of aggravation whereas if you divide the 1.5 billion by 26 you get 50-60 million. People complained about the lawsuit against McDonalds for hot coffee as being excessive. I can certainly understand why someone might not support Alex Jones, might think he is guilty and yet might also think the penalty was excessive. So just because someone sees the judgment as excessive is not the same thing as defending Alex Jones.

Also, I don't think it's excessive at all. The whole point is to take everything he has so he doesn't have a platform to defame people anymore.
Since he can't be criminally prosecuted, nothing short of his being sued down to his last pair of underwear would be Justice

 

[ZNP]

Also, I don't think it's excessive at all. The whole point is to take everything he has so he doesn't have a platform to defame people anymore.
Since he can't be criminally prosecuted, nothing short of his being sued down to his last pair of underwear would be Justice

Yes that is offensive, insulting, even slander. Are you going to sue him?

I agree that you can read that and infer that he might support Alex Jones, or you might infer that he doesn't support the lawsuit. I suppose not supporting the lawsuit does in one way support Alex Jones. But most people would understand "support Alex Jones" as to mean he is innocent. Certainly one possible way to interpret what he said in that post, but another equally plausible interpretation is not that he thinks Alex Jones is innocent but that he thinks the lawsuit is petty. I understand that you would be offended by that.

So I'll agree that this person does qualify as having "defended" Alex Jones, if only inferentially and as long as you understand that the "defense" was insinuating that the lawsuit was petty.

 

[Dude653]

Yes that is offensive, insulting, even slander. Are you going to sue him?

I agree that you can read that and infer that he might support Alex Jones, or you might infer that he doesn't support the lawsuit. I suppose not supporting the lawsuit does in one way support Alex Jones. But most people would understand "support Alex Jones" as to mean he is innocent. Certainly one possible way to interpret what he said in that post, but another equally plausible interpretation is not that he thinks Alex Jones is innocent but that he thinks the lawsuit is petty. I understand that you would be offended by that.

So I'll agree that this person does qualify as having "defended" Alex Jones, if only inferentially and as long as you understand that the "defense" was insinuating that the lawsuit was petty.

At the risk of being redundant, the point is to bankrupt him so he doesn't have a platform to do this to someone else
Because he will do it again because he's just that stupid

 

[ZNP]

At the risk of being redundant, the point is to bankrupt him so he doesn't have a platform to do this to someone else
Because he will do it again because he's just that stupid

The lawsuit allows people to bankrupt him, but not to silence him. If Elon Musk or Babylon Bee wants to hire him they can. It would make perfect sense since he is one of the most popular show hosts there is.

 

[Dude653]

The lawsuit allows people to bankrupt him, but not to silence him. If Elon Musk or Babylon Bee wants to hire him they can. It would make perfect sense since he is one of the most popular show hosts there is.

Yeah that sounds like something Elon musk would do seeing as how he bought Twitter for the express purpose of giving cuckoos a platform

 

[gb9]

Yeah that sounds like something Elon musk would do seeing as how he bought Twitter for the express purpose of giving cuckoos a platform

well, there is another court hearing on infowars tomorrow, so you might get your wish of them being bought and closed..

 

[Dude653]

Yes that is offensive, insulting, even slander. Are you going to sue him?

I agree that you can read that and infer that he might support Alex Jones, or you might infer that he doesn't support the lawsuit. I suppose not supporting the lawsuit does in one way support Alex Jones. But most people would understand "support Alex Jones" as to mean he is innocent. Certainly one possible way to interpret what he said in that post, but another equally plausible interpretation is not that he thinks Alex Jones is innocent but that he thinks the lawsuit is petty. I understand that you would be offended by that.

So I'll agree that this person does qualify as having "defended" Alex Jones, if only inferentially and as long as you understand that the "defense" was insinuating that the lawsuit was petty.

I literally highlighted the part where he said hoax. He just spelled it differently

 

[ZNP]

I literally highlighted the part where he said hoax. He just spelled it differently

Yes, and I agreed with you as characterizing this post as defending Alex Jones.

 

[Dude653]

Yes, and I agreed with you as characterizing this post as defending Alex Jones.

Yes and anyone defending Alex Jones is immediately disqualified from talking to me about morals or Christian values

 

[ZNP]

Yes and anyone defending Alex Jones is immediately disqualified from talking to me about morals or Christian values

By that logic you would disqualify writers of the New Testament.

Paul consented the murder of Stephen.

James was a cult leader of the concision.

Peter denied the Lord 3 times.

Mark turned back from following the Lord.

Matthew was a tax collector.

I doubt your little discernment tool will truly guide you in the night. I wonder if it was hard on Stephen's family for Paul to become an apostle? How about those that were slandered by the concision, did they have a problem with James? What about those that had faithfully followed the Lord, did they have a problem with Peter and Mark? How about those that lost their homes to the tax collectors, did they have a problem with Matthew?

 

[gb9]

By that logic you would disqualify writers of the New Testament.

Paul consented the murder of Stephen.

James was a cult leader of the concision.

Peter denied the Lord 3 times.

Mark turned back from following the Lord.

Matthew was a tax collector.

I doubt your little discernment tool will truly guide you in the night. I wonder if it was hard on Stephen's family for Paul to become an apostle? How about those that were slandered by the concision, did they have a problem with James? What about those that had faithfully followed the Lord, did they have a problem with Peter and Mark? How about those that lost their homes to the tax collectors, did they have a problem with Matthew?

100%

 

[gb9]

Yes and anyone defending Alex Jones is immediately disqualified from talking to me about morals or Christian values

i will defend him. i have donated and bought his products.

and, when someone judges a matter with hearing a matter ( like you have never done any research on sandy hook, never actually listen to his show, or look at stories on infowars , and seeing if they are true or not), that is not Christian behavior, we are told NOT to do that.

and, refusing to forgive someone when they have said they were wrong, and apologized many times over is not 100% not Christian behavior.

so, there is that.

 

[Dude653]

i will defend him. i have donated and bought his products.

and, when someone judges a matter with hearing a matter ( like you have never done any research on sandy hook, never actually listen to his show, or look at stories on infowars , and seeing if they are true or not), that is not Christian behavior, we are told NOT to do that.

and, refusing to forgive someone when they have said they were wrong, and apologized many times over is not 100% not Christian behavior.

so, there is that.

Forgiveness doesn't mean you don't face consequences for your actions. Otherwise I could commit crimes with impunity and then tell the judge well. God forgave me so it's all good
You're defending a man who used his platform to slander defame and harass grieving families and made money while doing so.
Never speak to me again about Christian values or morals

 

[Eli1]

This guy is defending him

It's okay.
He's a flat earther too so allow some room for laughter.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

It's okay.
He's a flat earther too so allow some room for laughter.

Whether Alex Jones believes in Flat Earth or not (I didn't think he did?) $1.5B for hurting someone's feelings is excessive. Like, tyrannically excessive. Especially when Fauci is skipping around free after lie upon lie to the free world for four years (actually decades more) which caused (due to the stupidity of others) unprecedented economic destruction and death to millions.

Probably a few hundred dollars fine would have been more reasonable a penalty for Alex, or several retractions mentioning the court found he got it wrong during his ad breaks. But $1.5B? That's just corruption, plain and simple. And someone should go to gaol for it.

(Disclaimer: I don't really like Alex Jones. Sometimes, he has nuggets of information not yet in the mainstream which are usually many years old, and I find him quite amusing during his rants, but this case is about tyranny, not Alex Jones and some liberal tears).

 

[shittim]

Well said brother

 

[Eli1]

Whether Alex Jones believes in Flat Earth or not (I didn't think he did?) $1.5B for hurting someone's feelings is excessive. Like, tyrannically excessive. Especially when Fauci is skipping around free after lie upon lie to the free world for four years (actually decades more) which caused (due to the stupidity of others) unprecedented economic destruction and death to millions.

Probably a few hundred dollars fine would have been more reasonable a penalty for Alex, or several retractions mentioning the court found he got it wrong during his ad breaks. But $1.5B? That's just corruption, plain and simple. And someone should go to gaol for it.

(Disclaimer: I don't really like Alex Jones. Sometimes, he has nuggets of information not yet in the mainstream which are usually many years old, and I find him quite amusing during his rants, but this case is about tyranny, not Alex Jones and some liberal tears).

I meant you're a flat earther my friend.
And as i told you before, it's a nice ice breaker to get some laughs in the room.

As far as Alex Jones goes, i am kind of allergic to him, but i realize that he needs God's mercy too.
I think that he also apologized for what he said. Even if he did it insincerely, what matters is that he had the courage to apologize.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

I meant you're a flat earther my friend.
And as i told you before, it's a nice ice breaker to get some laughs in the room.

Well I hope I'm not being sued for $1.5B!!! I don't even own my own independent news network!!!

As far as Alex Jones goes, i am kind of allergic to him, but i realize that he needs God's mercy too.
I think that he also apologized for what he said. Even if he did it insincerely, what matters is that he had the courage to apologize.

Yeah, I think this is true.

 

[Eli1]

Well I hope I'm not being sued for $1.5B!!! I don't even own my own independent news network!!!

Don't worry about it.
You do the conspiracy section and i do the common sense, moral and humane section.
Two different audiences.