Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Saint Cy of JFC, Aug 8, 2018.
It certainly helps legitimize him to his fans. Still a fine move, he's a waste of air.
It is a First Amendment debate. If you operate in the public, if you are "Open to the Public" without some kind of "private club" identity like the CFR, you are like any grocery store or restaurant of theatre. It is illegal to refuse service because of race or religion. In broader terms, because of any identifying characteristic or belief.
This is what the law amounts to even for JFC, until they post a policy identifying themselves as a political group advocating only a certain political view and withdraw the claim to being "Jazz Fans".
That is how the "Bake My Cake" case was settled recently by the Supreme Court, even though the plaintiffs were asking for
something that was not advertised as the product for sale. Just the fact that they would take special orders from other folks meant they had to take special orders from the plaintiffs, regardless of their beliefs.
I think you are right on the spot here. There are about 5 Million Americans who will follow Alex Jones one way or another, even if he has to print pamphlets and smuggle them from state to state. Banning him in generic terms is a very bad business move for the platforms. Setting guidelines required of all contributors is very very good for business and very very bad for the hungry lawyers.
The air is public domain though, and there's enough of it for everyone.
If that where the case he would have been banned long ago.
You don't know when the defamed people's lawyers made those platforms aware of the information they have.
By allowing him to continue to publish on their platforms, in violation of their policies, could these organisations be opening themselves up to potential litigation? For instance if I was a solicitor representing an injured party i would certainly encourage my client to broaden their law suit to include major corporations with deeper pockets. Particularly if you can demonstrate that this man is continuing to publish on their platform despite violating their policies, despite people complaining to those corporations, it could be argued that they could be liable for damages caused to individuals by this mans actions.
it would also be a PR nightmare.
They can listen to him on CB radio. Kick him off the wonderful platforms us globalists created.
If you look around the internet you can find recordings of Rush's old radio shows from the 80's. A lot of the show was just Rush spewing outlandish "Howard Stern-light" stuff for comedic/shock value that people starting taking seriously. His original producer (Kit Carson?) was smart enough to recognize the potential, clean the show up a bit and eventually get it syndicated.
Always found that interesting that's how the conservative talk radio format that we know today started.
I'd have to ask if he used a pseudonym. The person I'm thinking of decided Rush was a sellout to the establishment.
My acquaintance was bragging. He had a little radio program of his own at the time, but I think he swept the floors at KFBK. couldn't find him on the list of Rush associates at all.
just an aside.... where are you from???? some country that historically just slices heads of nonconformists/disbelievers???
come to America and learn to swim in actual water. It's scarier than sand. But still, sometimes people drown in sand. And other stuff. One day there was a school tour of a salt pile, climbing around on it, when the automatic screw for feeding the bagger kicked on, and sucked her under. They stopped the screw mechanism, but couldn't dig her out in time. Drowned in salt. Might be the origin of the term "getting screwed" too, whaddya think. Automatic stuff isn't human.
I think US libs are taking a step back palling around with folks who still don't get the drift of Western culture, which emerged from perhaps the darkest age in human history, where "the Divine Right of Kings" and "Primus nuptum" were pretty convincing slogans like the ones used today by Leftwing mobs raging through the 'net, burning books and deleting history, trying to purify the past and photo-shop the future.
Of course, I won't really say conservatives are more enlightened. But perhaps they do it all backwards... glorifying the past and hiding from the future..... oh yeah, and burning what books have not been burned yet.
Probably you really laugh a bit when trying to find rhetoric to snare me with...… but I dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee..... or imagine I do.
The foundations of modern Western civilization are woven outta people who fought, died, and still won some few elements of human dignity and liberty, digging with bare fingers into castle stone until the damn castles crumbled. Maybe never really finished the job. But will never quit trying.
It takes a thousand screaming ninnies to go up in flames before we find one Jean du Arc, a thousand knuckleheaded jocks taking bribes from royals in the secret night, throwing battles to the Lords in the light of day, to find one Braveheart.
But in the end, the nattering naybobs of negativism and the twittering troglodytes of totalitarianism, just don't have a case. People will be free.
nattering nabobs of negativism
A phrase used by Vice President Spiro Agnew to refer to the members of the media with whom he had a very acrimonious relationship.
Said Agnew while speaking to the California Republican state convention on September 11, 1970: “In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club — the ‘hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.'”
While the phrase is generally attributed to Agnew, it was actually written by White House speechwriter William Safire.
Will Bunch: “The words that William Safire penned and that Spiro Agnew mouthed actually had enormous impact that has lasted until this day. They helped foster among conservatives and the folks that Nixon called ‘the silent majority’ a growing mistrust of the mainstream media, a mistrust that grew over two generations into a form of hatred. It also started a dangerous spiral of events — journalists started bending backwards to kowtow to their conservative critics, beginning in the time of Reagan, an ill-advised shift that did not win back a single reader or viewer on the right. Instead, it caused a lot of folks on the left and even the center to wonder why the national media had stopped doing its job, stopped questioning authority.”
I am a good swimmer, and a good skater too. And I shoot straight. Being related close enough to globalists might help me escape being taken too seriously when playing devil's advocate sometimes, but it also makes my nattering incomprehensible to some.
It takes a real moron to believe it will help some cause to cut me down to size. But then moronic causes like purifying public forums do attract morons. Even rich morons.
And that Will Bunch's expansive moralizations over the wisdom of media hacks is about as self-serving as any conceited bonehead. "question authority" was a sixties phrase owned by potheads too smart to care for their neurons, too stupid to think for themselves. Don't care much, more like.
The media in this country has been owned, compromised, prostituted probably from the days of King George III. Throw a hunk of meat over the wall, and you can pilfer the goods of the palace while our media snarls over a whiff of blood.
It's been fun here today trifling with the zombies, but I gotta get going.... back to California.
Lol, dont say anything bad about any of the talking heads from the conservative propaganda networks...Or you'll get the full babe response.
Nothing like getting a 3 page responses filled with "some people think this way" and they are the only ones telling the truth. Followed by some"theory" with no proof except that they were told it and it goes against real news with evidence.
Don't bash Jones. Unless you want to get the horns from babe. Who he supports and listens to according to him but doesn't listen to nor will he defend him right now.
Babe is one of the few people I rotate through my ignore feature. Not because I dislike or are bugged by his comments but because his spam full page responses make reading threads rough at times. But I usually take him off ignore after a few days because I miss reading some of his nonsensical rants and I get a summary of what the conservative talk show hosts said that day. Plus it makes reading the thread make more sense and gives me a perspective of what people who have listened to too many rants on talk radio and have become paranoid and dont believe anything except what their own random thoughts are on a subject.
It does cut my reading in the GD section in half though, which is really nice.
There is really no discussion to be had when the basis for facts and information are so different.
Of course, because you fancy yourself speaking for all Americans, so the only explanation for my opinions is that I'm a filthy foreigner.
I only read the first paragraph. I assume the rest is irrelevant **** about the UN wanting to enslave us all.
A lot of people think that they are in the majority with their opinions because when they state their opinions people tend to agree. But for the most part its just being polite. When people talk to me in person about politics and I'm not in the mood to debate (which is most of the time) I tent to just nod my head and change the subject. Or just say something like, I dont know that but whatever and move on. They tend to think I am agreeing with them and that usually is not the case.
I mean, you must know a lot about sand and about people having their heads chopped off...
babe usually doesn't go there, but that post of his was pretty gross.
I love how he pretended not to know where I'm from. All that stuff about swimming in the sand and cutting the heads of unbelievers must be a coincidence.
This becomes a problem for me at work because it is a very conservative environment and I do not agree with a lot of what is said by coworkers. But I don't have the time nor the energy to take on every horrid comment I hear about the LGBT community, immigrants, protestors, atheists and/or liberals. And then I realize that because I didn't argue the comment, that person believes I agree with them (because the underlying position is that everyone in the office agrees with each other). It is disturbing.
I've been trying lately to at least make one statement that lets them know I don't agree. For example, when someone was making comments about a transgender individual who had been in the office, I got in a comment about how I will likely never understand what it feels like for my brain and my body to disagree about my gender, so I would not feel comfortable deciding what that person should or should not be. If nothing else, perhaps they will keep their conversations away from my office.
Not a first amendment issue at all.
These companies have a right to carry or not carry whatever they want. Jones is still free to throw on a barrel over his body and scream his insanity at subway riders. Or create his own Facebook page. I thought repubs liked free market economics?
Facebook banned him in part to their $200+ billion dollar loss last week. Stockholders are concerned with how the platform is being used by these fake news clowns to damage American democracy (and violate privacy laws). Oh and he was using his platform to defame or hurt innocent people. Let’s not forget, he claimed that sandy hook was a hoax which led to those poor parents receiving death threats from Jones’ mindless zombies.
Pretty hilarious. Although, I’m sure babe might get offended.