This creates a dangerous precedent for free speech globally; here's hoping someone like Elon can shut this gross government overreach down before it's too late.
Alex is just a test case; these globalist tyrants and operatives hope everyone ignores this when it happens to Alex so they can rob their political opponents and eventually us of any autonomy and free will.
They're not just trying to shut this account down. For months, they've been saying that they should gain control over the account so that they can post using his name and likeness.
They want to steal his face and wear him as a skin suit.
If they take it over, I promise they will have deleted the account within a few days. They can't survive on X for whatever reason. Which is weird cuz nothing really happens to them other than a million "fuck you" replies. But the journalists go private. The gov't doesn't, usually, on their official account ,however I doubt they want this one. That is my prediction.
I would guess the terms of X explain that X owns the account. They always say the author owns the data. So I suppose the gov't could take that? His old posts?
But definitely the government cannot keep X from removing the verification (since it is no longer one Alex Jones, and twitter accounts are supposed to be real (lol)). X could even ban the account. I would, on account of it being a sockpuppet hacked account.
It's actually insane how much they hate this guy. Like, aside from Trump, and maybe Snowden, Alex Jones might be the most federally persecuted individual in the country. And all he really is is "old man yelling at clouds".
The simple answer is that what he's saying isn't complete nonsense.
By this point I'm more than willing to say Sandy Hook was a federal false flag, simply on the way the feds consistently loose their shit over anyone who says that.
Is there a serious look at some of the claims around Sandy Hook and a summary? I haven't followed it much but I'm not even sure what's actually being claimed. I've seen the video of Parents laughing and joking before tearing up for interviews.
Where does that fit into the overall picture?
my guess is because he was right about the crisis actors conspiracy theory. if the public accepts that, in the public accepts that the federal government staged mass casualty events, or was otherwise complicit in the murder of children.
Poisoning the well to Strawman, while shifting the Overton Window.
Just as the proliferation of Flat Earth and Fake Moon Landing theories by spooks is still being done to belittle and strawman those who question things like the JFK assassination, Waco, or 9/11 narratives, they're going after him to make destroying reasonable people much easier. You start with the "crazies" that most of the populace can agree on, then work from there ("anti-vaxxers", "White supremacists", "far-right", etc.)
This is guy who only in the past few years started talking about China being the global threat because of COVID, and most definitely the real ones puppeteering the US (/s). Previously, it was trans-dimensional vampires. He's a lightning rod for a certain breed of pseudo-intellectuals.
Just as the proliferation of Flat Earth and Fake Moon Landing theories by spooks is still being done to belittle and strawman those who question things like the JFK assassination, Waco, or 9/11 narratives,
I still believe with 100% conviction in the "Conspiracy Conspiracy", which is the deliberate sharing and proliferation of explicitly false conspiracy theories to help disguise, hide in plain site, or discredit other legitimate conspiracies that would otherwise easily and rightfully earn severe pushback.
Revenge? He's the guy who snuck into the Bilderberg conference and revealed their worship of Moloch to the public. He also supported Trump and had him on his show early on in the 2016 campaign.
It was not the feds though. He got sued by his victims - people he had defamed and / or their families. He then chose to breach the rules of litigation and had default judgment entered against him.
Wrong again. One of those people he was being sued by was a federal agent that was never present at the shooting and was never named by Trump.
he never breached the rules of litigation. The judges orders on discovery were unconstitutionally broad as it was, Alex complied with those orders, then provided more than was necessary. The prosecution claimed this was still not enough despite having several million pages of documents of everything the corporation had ever done, all of it's financial statements, all of it's marketing material, millions of emails, and the full contents of Jones' personal cellphone. So, the judge being a rabid political activist saw to protect this persecution from a jury trial and made a default judgement.
So yeah, the feds.
Don't fucking pretend that this exact strategy wasn't attempted in each of Donald Trump's trials.
Yea the bullshit claim by a judge when you lay everything out and then the judge goes "well I know you're obviously hiding something else, because I'm psychic or some shit." The whole thing is a massive fraud and a corruption of any kind of justice system.
I can accept a default judgement for refusing discovery, but that never happened. The individual must explicitly deny and refuse exact documents. That never happened. If that were the case, which documents were refused?
It was a sham show trial in the USA where the news defames people all the time and the UK isn't much better. Look at the Johnny Depp case or Ian Hislop.
and weren't the so called defamed acting in a political manner being used by the media?
They really hate how this one man easily reads them like a book over their false flags, deception plans and the like and how much of a massive reach he has relative to what he does.
Reminder that he never got his day in court, he was railroaded into a default judgement.
The court asked for Google analytics data. Jones could not provide that info because Google banned him from the service years prior, and ignored his request to privde the data to the court. So the court ruled a default judgement against him for failure to provide discovery. This is normally only for people who fail to show up. He's the only person who showed up for every court appointment and received a default judgement against him.
Pure corruption and malice. The courts are evil and enemy operated, stay far away if you can.
The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Didnt Alex Jones also get told by the judge that he was not allowed to argue his innocence? That the entire trial was just arguing from the prosecution about how much restitut.. extortion was to be applied?
Yep. I doubt Vordrak knows any of that. It's just like I said to him: he has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble. I am cautiously hopeful that he's willing to stick around and have a discussion, but I have never, ever, seen a Leftist do that. They alway run away, or (on reddit) use bullying tactics like blocking or banning.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never
been challenged and never needed to defend your positions
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic"
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.
He absolutely answered questions and complied with discovery. He provided more discovery information than anyone in American legal history. He turned over millions of documents, and his attorney even provided his full cellphone. At one point the prosecution demanded he provide information that simply didn't exist. This is one of the reasons that they were asking for 1.3 Trillion dollars initially. They invented a conspiracy theory that he was one of the richest men on planet Earth, then when he didn't prove that their case, the judge defaulted against him.
He couldn't discharge his debts in bankruptcy because the amount is more than the GDP of France, and more than is physically capable of being provided to him. The retarded faggot prosecutors are fighting with each other about who gets to claim the lion's share of the business.
If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice.
Bullshit. They didn't need to prove actual malice because they got to declare it.
Congratulations sucking on the barrel of the gun that you will be shot with. This mechanism was a test-run of what they tried (and have partially succeeded in doing) to Donald Trump. You are next to get this treatment. Don't cry to us when you lose your home because you personally can't pay fines that are worth more than the gross lifetime income of you, your family, your friends, your employees, your rental properties, and businesses, combined, times 100.
Meanwhile, pharma corporations with trillions of dollars in profits and assets get slapped on the wrist. And why not? All they did was literally kill people. That and fund 75% of mainstream news media.
Andrew Cuomo hasn't had to answer for 45,000 counts of negligent homicide. Gretchen Whitmer 13,000. The largest corporations on Earth participated in the single largest transfer of wealth in human history since the conquistadors looted the Maya.
Damn, I already said you sounded like a faggot earlier in this comment section, and you've proven me right mere minutes later.
What a massive, English faggot. Of course, you can't help it because you're English, a bunch of fucking cucks who're letting their nation get run into the ground by sand-niggers and nigger-niggers.
Keep your retarded, barely human ramblings to yourself. Your ancestors would be ashamed of you
Nope I am a right-wing Conservative blogger. I've been harassed by police over my positions in the past and have had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
This creates a dangerous precedent for free speech globally; here's hoping someone like Elon can shut this gross government overreach down before it's too late.
Alex is just a test case; these globalist tyrants and operatives hope everyone ignores this when it happens to Alex so they can rob their political opponents and eventually us of any autonomy and free will.
They're not just trying to shut this account down. For months, they've been saying that they should gain control over the account so that they can post using his name and likeness.
They want to steal his face and wear him as a skin suit.
If they take it over, I promise they will have deleted the account within a few days. They can't survive on X for whatever reason. Which is weird cuz nothing really happens to them other than a million "fuck you" replies. But the journalists go private. The gov't doesn't, usually, on their official account ,however I doubt they want this one. That is my prediction.
I predict they won't actually be able to confiscate it because it's not even Alex Jones' property, and it has no inherent value.
I would guess the terms of X explain that X owns the account. They always say the author owns the data. So I suppose the gov't could take that? His old posts?
But definitely the government cannot keep X from removing the verification (since it is no longer one Alex Jones, and twitter accounts are supposed to be real (lol)). X could even ban the account. I would, on account of it being a sockpuppet hacked account.
Technically, if Alex isn't using it, it would be impersonation, so the account might get banned if they start using it.
It's actually insane how much they hate this guy. Like, aside from Trump, and maybe Snowden, Alex Jones might be the most federally persecuted individual in the country. And all he really is is "old man yelling at clouds".
Which really begs the question: Why? What point is there in going after Alex Jones if what he says is complete non-sense?
The simple answer is that what he's saying isn't complete nonsense.
By this point I'm more than willing to say Sandy Hook was a federal false flag, simply on the way the feds consistently loose their shit over anyone who says that.
Is there a serious look at some of the claims around Sandy Hook and a summary? I haven't followed it much but I'm not even sure what's actually being claimed. I've seen the video of Parents laughing and joking before tearing up for interviews. Where does that fit into the overall picture?
my guess is because he was right about the crisis actors conspiracy theory. if the public accepts that, in the public accepts that the federal government staged mass casualty events, or was otherwise complicit in the murder of children.
Poisoning the well to Strawman, while shifting the Overton Window.
Just as the proliferation of Flat Earth and Fake Moon Landing theories by spooks is still being done to belittle and strawman those who question things like the JFK assassination, Waco, or 9/11 narratives, they're going after him to make destroying reasonable people much easier. You start with the "crazies" that most of the populace can agree on, then work from there ("anti-vaxxers", "White supremacists", "far-right", etc.)
This is guy who only in the past few years started talking about China being the global threat because of COVID, and most definitely the real ones puppeteering the US (/s). Previously, it was trans-dimensional vampires. He's a lightning rod for a certain breed of pseudo-intellectuals.
I still believe with 100% conviction in the "Conspiracy Conspiracy", which is the deliberate sharing and proliferation of explicitly false conspiracy theories to help disguise, hide in plain site, or discredit other legitimate conspiracies that would otherwise easily and rightfully earn severe pushback.
Revenge? He's the guy who snuck into the Bilderberg conference and revealed their worship of Moloch to the public. He also supported Trump and had him on his show early on in the 2016 campaign.
It was not the feds though. He got sued by his victims - people he had defamed and / or their families. He then chose to breach the rules of litigation and had default judgment entered against him.
Wrong again. One of those people he was being sued by was a federal agent that was never present at the shooting and was never named by Trump.
he never breached the rules of litigation. The judges orders on discovery were unconstitutionally broad as it was, Alex complied with those orders, then provided more than was necessary. The prosecution claimed this was still not enough despite having several million pages of documents of everything the corporation had ever done, all of it's financial statements, all of it's marketing material, millions of emails, and the full contents of Jones' personal cellphone. So, the judge being a rabid political activist saw to protect this persecution from a jury trial and made a default judgement.
So yeah, the feds.
Don't fucking pretend that this exact strategy wasn't attempted in each of Donald Trump's trials.
Yea the bullshit claim by a judge when you lay everything out and then the judge goes "well I know you're obviously hiding something else, because I'm psychic or some shit." The whole thing is a massive fraud and a corruption of any kind of justice system.
I can accept a default judgement for refusing discovery, but that never happened. The individual must explicitly deny and refuse exact documents. That never happened. If that were the case, which documents were refused?
There wasn't any.
Yep the Judge just made up shit. Like the ones in Trump's cases where they ask for the jury "feelings" on the case rather than the actual evidence.
It was a sham show trial in the USA where the news defames people all the time and the UK isn't much better. Look at the Johnny Depp case or Ian Hislop.
and weren't the so called defamed acting in a political manner being used by the media?
"his victims"
You sound like a faggot.
They really hate how this one man easily reads them like a book over their false flags, deception plans and the like and how much of a massive reach he has relative to what he does.
Reminder that he never got his day in court, he was railroaded into a default judgement.
The court asked for Google analytics data. Jones could not provide that info because Google banned him from the service years prior, and ignored his request to privde the data to the court. So the court ruled a default judgement against him for failure to provide discovery. This is normally only for people who fail to show up. He's the only person who showed up for every court appointment and received a default judgement against him.
Pure corruption and malice. The courts are evil and enemy operated, stay far away if you can.
Commie faggots gonna commie faggot.
Alex Jones deserved to be punished. He was the subject of a default judgment due to litigation misconduct. He did not answer questions or comply with discovery. After he lost and had damages awarded against him, the bankruptcy court found he could not discharge many of his debts in bankruptcy due to "wilful or malicious injury".
The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Didnt Alex Jones also get told by the judge that he was not allowed to argue his innocence? That the entire trial was just arguing from the prosecution about how much restitut.. extortion was to be applied?
Yep. I doubt Vordrak knows any of that. It's just like I said to him: he has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble. I am cautiously hopeful that he's willing to stick around and have a discussion, but I have never, ever, seen a Leftist do that. They alway run away, or (on reddit) use bullying tactics like blocking or banning.
Yes, explicitly. There was no trial. He faced a default judgement and was told that he could no longer argue his innocence to the jury.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
Hi there,
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.
Complete bullshit.
He absolutely answered questions and complied with discovery. He provided more discovery information than anyone in American legal history. He turned over millions of documents, and his attorney even provided his full cellphone. At one point the prosecution demanded he provide information that simply didn't exist. This is one of the reasons that they were asking for 1.3 Trillion dollars initially. They invented a conspiracy theory that he was one of the richest men on planet Earth, then when he didn't prove that their case, the judge defaulted against him.
He couldn't discharge his debts in bankruptcy because the amount is more than the GDP of France, and more than is physically capable of being provided to him. The retarded faggot prosecutors are fighting with each other about who gets to claim the lion's share of the business.
Bullshit. They didn't need to prove actual malice because they got to declare it.
Congratulations sucking on the barrel of the gun that you will be shot with. This mechanism was a test-run of what they tried (and have partially succeeded in doing) to Donald Trump. You are next to get this treatment. Don't cry to us when you lose your home because you personally can't pay fines that are worth more than the gross lifetime income of you, your family, your friends, your employees, your rental properties, and businesses, combined, times 100.
Meanwhile, pharma corporations with trillions of dollars in profits and assets get slapped on the wrist. And why not? All they did was literally kill people. That and fund 75% of mainstream news media.
Andrew Cuomo hasn't had to answer for 45,000 counts of negligent homicide. Gretchen Whitmer 13,000. The largest corporations on Earth participated in the single largest transfer of wealth in human history since the conquistadors looted the Maya.
So... how much money did they sue the shooter for? Considering he did a little more damage than shouty meme man.
He did not do more damage than AJ. He did his job just like his handlers required
No real loss was incurred by those frauds, nor are they in any legitimate way victimized by being disbelieved.
If anything, persecuting Jones to this extent proves beyond doubt that the supposed shooting was a hoax.
To summarize, get fucked.
My mistake. I'll correct what I said above. Get fucked in the ass.
I think Lethn's back...
Seems like different sentence structure to me, but could be.
Holy shit don't bully people. That's against the rules.
Damn, I already said you sounded like a faggot earlier in this comment section, and you've proven me right mere minutes later.
What a massive, English faggot. Of course, you can't help it because you're English, a bunch of fucking cucks who're letting their nation get run into the ground by sand-niggers and nigger-niggers.
Keep your retarded, barely human ramblings to yourself. Your ancestors would be ashamed of you
Nope I am a right-wing Conservative blogger. I've been harassed by police over my positions in the past and have had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.