Sandy Hook: Alex Jones loses case over 'hoax' remarks

[Dave]

But Joe is a sea aye ayy asset

The Civil Aviation Authority?

 

[Guest 290922]

Alex Jones, Count Dankula, Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, Linda Moulton Howe and George Knapp. Love alternative news.

 

[Kieppie]

Didtionary.com

Collins

Cambridge

Wiki

Yeah, so you're gonna have to explain to the class how Fox, the most viewed cable news network in the US and part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which includes the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, They Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and more *isn't* traditional mainstream media.

You must be particularly enamored with the Collins definition

 

[greg0205]

You must be particularly enamored with the Collins definition

They’re almost indistinguishable, and no, Collins doesn’t stand out particularly for me at all.

Just love how folk who watch Fox think they’re somehow consuming news differently to those who watch ABC or CBS or, or, or…

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

Jones is nothing more than a predator of the gullible.

The worst of humankind.

What if he’s right

 

[greg0205]

What if he’s right

We're in a thread discussing how he has to pay nearly $50 million in damages after just one of the three cases that have been brought against him for being deliberately and intentionally wrong, but you do you I guess...

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

We're in a thread discussing how he has to pay nearly $50 million in damages after just one of the three cases that have been brought against him for being deliberately and intentionally wrong, but you do you I guess...

He’s obviously got some details wrong

 

[Kieppie]

They’re almost indistinguishable, and no, Collins doesn’t stand out particularly for me at all.

Just love how folk who watch Fox think they’re somehow consuming news differently to those who watch ABC or CBS or, or, or…

For me that's about the same as those that believe Fox is somehow subpar when compared to CNN, MSNBC etc when they are in fact the same. What you mention is simply the other side of the coin.
If you feel comfortable in sharing articles from one you should feel comfortable with sharing news from the others. Which is why I find it funny when people hold these misguided views.

I won't get my news from the pundits or panels that have shows on these networks, although it can, at times, be amusing to watch.

 

[Kieppie]

We're in a thread discussing how he has to pay nearly $50 million in damages after just one of the three cases that have been brought against him for being deliberately and intentionally wrong, but you do you I guess...

That part is nonsense though. I know you'd like to believe that, but it's nonsense nonetheless.

To quote the judge "your beliefs do not make something true"

 

[greg0205]

For me that's about the same as those that believe Fox is somehow subpar when compared to CNN, MSNBC etc when they are in fact the same. What you mention is simply the other side of the coin.
If you feel comfortable in sharing articles from one you should feel comfortable with sharing news from the others. Which is why I find it funny when people hold these misguided views.

I won't get my news from the pundits or panels that have shows on these networks, although it can, at times, be amusing to watch.

Again, we've been at this long enough for you to know that I don't generally post Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC *unless* it's for specific opinion. Hell, I post as much or more from John Oliver or Colbert.

Print news I prefer folks who have a history of printing retractions when they're wrong.

Either way, I prefer not watching or posting the channel that pulled "fair and balanced" from it's tagline and regularly defends itself in court saying viewers know the hosts are bullish**ing; or need to be sued to stop lying about murdered DNC staff; or are currently facing billions in damages from litigation related to lying about the 2020 election.

 

[greg0205]

He’s obviously got some details wrong

Jesus!

Some details?

Like the shooting was fake? Or maybe that it was a false flag so the government could take people's guns? Or maybe that the kids and parents were crisis actors? Or maybe that the kids never existed in the first place?

Some details?

Sweet baby cheeses, Pak...

 

[greg0205]

That part is nonsense though. I know you'd like to believe that, but it's nonsense nonetheless.

To quote the judge "your beliefs do not make something true"

He lied about it, deliberately, but you want us to go with maybe it was a mistake??

Thanks, but I decline.

 

[Dave]

What if he’s right

Why not go the whole hog? What if Hitler was right about the Jews? What if Paul Kruger was right and the earth is flat? What if David Icke is right and we are ruled by shapeshifter lizards?

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

Why not go the whole hog? What if Hitler was right about the Jews? What if Paul Kruger was right and the earth is flat? What if David Icke is right and we are ruled by shapeshifter lizards?

Did Paul think the earth was flat

 

[greg0205]

What if he’s right

Why not go the whole hog? What if Hitler was right about the Jews? What if Paul Kruger was right and the earth is flat? What if David Icke is right and we are ruled by shapeshifter lizards?

Pak, just as soon as you've answered Dave's post, maybe you could go into specifics of how Alex Jones was right about government weather weapons?

Or maybe how he was right about chemicals in water that turn frogs gay?

Or, my personal favourite, how he was right about Hillary's sex trafficking ring that runs out of a pizzeria basement?

You can do this pal, I believe in you.

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

Jesus!

Some details?

Like the shooting was fake? Or maybe that it was a false flag so the government could take people's guns? Or maybe that the kids and parents were crisis actors? Or maybe that the kids never existed in the first place?

Some details?

Sweet baby cheeses, Pak...

Uvalde timing was spot on, but whatever
I did some browsing on jones, didn’t know much about him, he’s right about some things but doesn’t go too deep or specific about things, whether on purpose or just doesnt understand it himself

In general I would not say he is 100% wrong

 

[greg0205]

Uvalde timing was spot on, but whatever
I did some browsing on jones, didn’t know much about him, he’s right about some things but doesn’t go too deep or specific about things, whether on purpose or just doesnt understand it himself

In general I would not say he is 100% wrong

If you don't recognise his BS at face value, you're probably prime InfoWars audience.

Good luck.

Oh...

The Uvalde shooting conspiracies show how far-right misinformation is evolving

Rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories were rampant on right-wing social media before verifiable information came out about the gunman who killed 21 people at a Texas elementary school.

www.npr.org

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

Pak, just as soon as you've answered Dave's post, maybe you could go into specifics of how Alex Jones was right about government weather weapons?

Or maybe how he was right about chemicals in water that turn frogs gay?

Or, my personal favourite, how he was right about Hillary's sex trafficking ring that runs out of a pizzeria basement?

You can do this pal, I believe in you.

My quick analysis

Is the climate change mainstream push a weather weapon for governments.

Whats making so many gay and trans and and and

Epstein knew something and was involved in something, Maxwell was close to the Clinton’s

So he, Jones dances around topics without revealing the details, maybe that’s part of his plan to keep his audience hanging on and his bank balance growing

 

[Kieppie]

Again, we've been at this long enough for you to know that I don't generally post Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC *unless* it's for specific opinion. Hell, I post as much or more from John Oliver or Colbert.

The reply wasn't directed at you, but it's a sentiment among many here that don't actually follow US news/politics hence they are ill informed.

Print news I prefer folks who have a history of printing retractions when they're wrong.

It's important yes, which is why I mentioned corrections/retractions staying up for a while in that earlier suggestion. Even your bigger, supposedly more trustworthy, outlets do stealth edits and such at times.

Either way, I prefer not watching or posting the channel that pulled "fair and balanced" from it's tagline and regularly defends itself in court saying viewers know the hosts are bullish**ing; or need to be sued to stop lying about murdered DNC staff; or are currently facing billions in damages from litigation related to lying about the 2020 election.

Yes, yes and as we know that is the same defense they used on MSNBC. Doubt that litigation is going to go anywhere, but we'll see.

The major difference is that Fox has, from the onset, said it is a right-wing outlet, so you know what you get. CNN for example pretend that they are balanced news outlet. They were a decade or more ago, but not so anymore. They'd face less criticism if they were honest about that.
Didn't Shelter at one point tell his audience something to the effect of not to watch/trust other news, but only watch/trust CNN? I feel sorry for people that only consume news from one outlet.

Anyway long story short it isn't just Republican journalists working at Fox just as it isn't just Democrat journalists working at MSNBC. The various companies just editorialises the stories to suit their respective audiences. A change in ownership can quickly change the slant of reporting.

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

If you don't recognise his BS at face value, you're probably prime InfoWars audience.

Good luck.

Oh...

The Uvalde shooting conspiracies show how far-right misinformation is evolving

Rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories were rampant on right-wing social media before verifiable information came out about the gunman who killed 21 people at a Texas elementary school.

www.npr.org

Have you watched the full video of Uvalde from the cctv, there’s some conspiracy stuff going on there