Alex Jones Verdict $965million.

PM Jones verdict to Sandy Hook Families


27 thoughts on “Alex Jones Verdict $965million.

    1. Lesser Evil =/= Hero.

      And there is more than a difference in degree. Trump, for all his faults, is not cruel and uncaring. Telling the parents of those children their deaths were faked was cruel, and not someplace Trump would go.


      1. “Telling the parents of those children their deaths were faked was cruel…”

        That wasn’t the only reason. It was the loyal followers of Jones that took it upon themselves to harass the families of the victims as Jones relentlessly call them liars and, as the attorney said, help sell more books and supplements.

        This is a staple of today’s political arena. Make statements, then depend upon the extremists to do the dirty work.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. “Lesser Evil =/= Hero.”

        You casually referring to our majority political party as an “evil” is a good example of the damage your hero has inflicted on the body politic. You talk about civility and the “marketplace of ideas” but continue to offer such insults on a daily basis.

        Not cruel and uncaring? Really?
        What about a deliberate policy of stealing of babies to discourage asylum seekers? Is that somehow better than Jones insane ravings? In my opinion, it is far worse.

        Then there is this . . . ““I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away.”

        Liked by 4 people

          1. Bastiat knew nothing about the world that WE live in. And yet, you take his anachronistic anti-democratic aphorisms as dogma. All the time. Even when the EVIDENCE of multiple democracies proves him wrong about this plunder horseshit. You, and I mean you, do not get to call yourself a man of reason when you constantly ignore EVIDENCE that does not conform with what you want to believe.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. That collectives have succeeded in plunder is not evidence that it is anything but plunder, any more that a burglar getting away with the goods makes them rightfully his.

            You are doing exactly what Bastiat predicted. You support a legal system that allows plunder and a moral code that glorifies it.

            Wealth is created when resources are raised to a higher value.

            If I take lumber and make chairs form it to sell, the increase in value of the chairs over the raw lumber is wealth I created. When I sell those chairs, what part of the proceeds belongs to anyone but me?

            If all or part of those proceeds are taken from me by force, how is that anything but plunder.

            You have not in any way refuted Bastiat. Instead you have validated his prediction.


          3. Well, since you define “plunder” to be anything taken from you in taxes for a purpose that you do not personally approve of then you are once again offering tautologies from the solipsistic a priori world in your head. Not worth discussing. Your Revealed Truth can never be disproven by EVIDENCE of which there is plenty that society and everyone in it thrives when there is a certain level of “plunder.”

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Purpose doesn’t matter. Plunder is wealth taken against my will by force whether by an individual or by a collective.

            There is no revelation involved.

            I made chairs to sell. Please establish how some portion of that wealth created is yours to take? For any reason.


          5. Unless you live alone in a distant cave to make your chairs you incur obligations to the community you are part of. This is a simple and essential value beyond your comprehension so, really, there is nothing that can be usefully discussed. The question you ask and the way you ask it marks you for what you are – an extremist whose ideas will always be beyond marginal in the real world.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. RE: “Good.”

    I don’t know why. Alex Jones may be a scumbag (not my view), but even scumbags are entitled to a fair trial. Here’s a video that lays out some of the profound irregularities in the Jone’s case:

    Skip the first 5 minutes to get to the substantive discussion.


    1. Making the loss of a child even worse by using the tragedy to advance an agenda deserves destruction.

      Of course, the same applies to those who used the tragedy to advance gun control.


      1. “Of course, the same applies to those who used the tragedy to advance gun control.”

        Or sell more guns through fear advertising that your guns will be confiscated, so buy now, shoot later.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Making the loss of a child even worse by using the tragedy to advance an agenda deserves destruction.”

      OK. Does that moral position justify corrupting due process and the rule of law? I don’t think so. But more than that, if the attorneys in the video are correct on the merits of the case, Jones didn’t use Sandy Hook to advance an agenda.


          1. Yep, real strong prejudice against dancing on the graves of children,

            Regardless of political persuasion. Some things you just don’t exploit. I put him on the same level of hell as the gun control people who jump on these things.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: ‘Yep, real strong prejudice against dancing on the graves of children,”

            I get it, but (a) there is no law against dancing on the graves of children, and (b) making exceptions to the rule of law based on moral revulsion is the death of civil liberties.

            In any case, I don’t think Jones committed the atrocities you accuse him of.


          3. …”I don’t think Jones committed the atrocities you accuse him of.”

            That explains the legal limits of your mind. You don’t understand the law as well as you think you do.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. “…Jones didn’t use Sandy Hook to advance an agenda.”

        Yes he did. Two, in fact.

        First, he sold products to his audience which he held onto by his conspiracies.

        Second, he was trying to set the stage for a false flag to prove the deep state conspiracy and spread fear about gun control.

        The verdicts were not based on curtailing speech. They were based in compensation for the families that were threatened, harassed and forced to go into hiding or move. Jones incited a lynch mob so he could sell his products and promote conspiracies to sell even more.

        He wasn’t just dancing on graves, he was denying the burials so he could make money. Now he has to pay it back.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. The judge explained why he could not use First Amendment defense. Defamation does not allow it, by the LAW. Too bad your attorneys in the video aren’t smart enough to listen to the judge.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s