It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alex Jones’s Attorneys Argue That No Reasonable Person Would Believe What He Says

page: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


So what is CNN’s biggest objective lie??


Ratings, and there is a wide range of tactics to get those.

Journalism is reporting unadulterated facts, not spicing up boring stories. That isn't really a sexy thing to do when you have a very expensive cable platform.



(post by JBurns removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: toms54

For one diffence Jones has gone full blown pro-Government political hack. Where Clyde Lewis , Norris and bell always played the bi-partisan anti-government conspiracy game.



Good point. Alex jones has obviously become entrenched into the Trump campaign and therefor mainstream politics.

At least Jones comes off as a looney, many "news" outlets have been pushing false or twisted stories for ratings and or agendas lately (all political spectrums).


The entire Trump thing is a conspiracy theory unto itself. What's the difference between that and anything else Jones talks about? I would guess you like CNN now that it has turned into an anti-government conspiracy channel. Actually, CNN is not that different from Alex Jones now. They both talk about outrageous conspiracies continuously.


(post by JBurns removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Alex Jones, many people use to say is a FAKE conspiracy theorist working for either the CIA or the deep state himself, probably a right-wing sinister group who wants to make conspiracy look ridiculous
After and around about the time Trump’s appearance many conspiracy sites went full racist and bigoted as if that was a planned operation.

The deep state itself thereby associated the conspiracy community with nutjob racists just to belittle it out of existence



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54


I would guess you like CNN now that it has turned into an anti-government conspiracy channel.


Obviously that is a guess, and a rather bad one considering I just said the contrary in the very post you quoted.


Actually, CNN is not that different from Alex Jones now. They both talk about outrageous conspiracies continuously.


What I said was at least Jones is known and open for what he does. CNN is still reputable in many people's mind which gives them a more power on their platform.

CNN is after ratings and they appease certain groups. They are a company comprised of people who are innately human, hence some bias will always shine through. That said they are doing what every cable network is doing. Ditching boring (but noble) journalism for hyped up BS to get ratings. They'll run with just about anything just like the inverse Fox will. They both have those dumbass "ALERTS!!!!" for the asinine tidbits.

Congratulation, you have one eye open. Now work on the other one.
edit on 2-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This "alternative news personality" lies by making up his version of the truth turning his followers into misinformed militant radicals. The "mainstream news personalities" lie by leaving out large chunks of the truth turning their followers into misinformed militant radicals. However, believe it or not neither of these two are the problem. We are for ignorantly following any of it without acquiring our own knowledge to combat their monopolies on the official narrative.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic


Okay, maybe y2k was the start



Vladimir Putin known as Vladimir THE RUTHLESS! He resembles a demon.


Thankfully you brought this to everyone's attention.





So are you saying mueller listens to jones?



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
So i missed the conclusion to the sandy hook situation.

Did it turn out that the mass shooter drill there was just a coincidence and all the signs they had up about emergency situation was just left over from the drill?

Just because jones takes the truth to the extremes of guesstimation does not mean sinister forces are not at work in these situations and the parents may learn much if they would seek answers to why the gov. planned such events to coincide with such events over and over.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: steamiron

I'm not saying there weren't any victims, quite the contrary. We know there was at least 3, since first responders treated/transported at least 3 patients with GSW.

What doesn't make sense is why young children would be essentially discarded & declared dead before EMS could even triage/evaluate/treat/transport them in accordance to MCI protocols.

Why did the hospitals (who were placed on "red line diversion" per MCI protocol) not receive their expected influx of trauma patients? Only 3 patients were treated & transported, which makes no sense. Why leave *any* children behind? Resources were *NOT* overwhelmed by 3 patients. There were EMS/medical professionals literally standing around while these kids were left for dead, as told by the official narrative.

I just want to know why their standard protocols were not followed. EMS was ordered to stand down, which is highly unusual especially for an MCI involving children. Believe me when I say they would have tried *everything* to save those children, regardless of how bad it looked.

EMS was on scene within X number of minutes of the incident, and no first responder is going to declare a bunch of children dead, especially without first following the MCI protocol (as they're legally required to do). In fact, START triage (a method used to triage MCI victims) has a mechanism for handling deceased patients/low survival probability (black tags) as evidenced by the colored tarps EMS personnel set up in the MCI "staging" area.

Who initiated the MCI protocols and who is responsible for terminating them prematurely?

Those questions deserve answers. I am disheartened you are not interested in those answers - justice and truth deserve no less! You are a Citizen in a free Republic, and that comes with a certain level of responsibility. When you parrot MSM narratives while ignoring/discrediting/outright attacking those who present very legitimate questions then you're part of the problem not the solution

I furthermore find Lanza's alleged 90-something percent "kill rate" to be unbelievable, and highly unusual for any mass-shooting even when the attacker is trained/fit. I find the confusion over the firearms used (the medical examiner couldn't tell the difference between "handgun" "shotgun" "rifle" and was seen laughing/joking during the press conference. These are not the questions of an idle mind or conspiratorial speculation - these are glaring holes in the prevailing narrative that deserve answers in the name of the truth and justice
edit on 8/2/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Pretty sure he is being paid by cointel for this entire charade as to make the average person associate conspiracy theorists with unhinged lunatics.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic


Okay, maybe y2k was the start



Vladimir Putin known as Vladimir THE RUTHLESS! He resembles a demon.


Thankfully you brought this to everyone's attention.





Well atleast with that video, alex proves that he isnt a russian agent. Since he called Putin a demon. I bet you many liberals think the same. Just saying.

Aside from that, arent liberals saying the same thing Alex said with regards to the russians "attacking us" through our elections?

Similar to Y2k imo.
edit on nd2018000000Thursdaynd000000Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:08:01 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoThu, 02 Aug 2018 13:08:01 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Isn't this similar to the argument Fox News tried to make in their lawsuit..they were entertainment, not to be taken seriously?



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Why do you care?


You cared enough to reply to this thread.


The guy is a full on nutjob, he makes money by engaging uninformed people


Many of which come onto this forum and spread his nonsense. He still has a large following.



CNN has a large following too. On the credibility scale Jones is low, but CNN is lower.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


English 2 Liberal Speak:

alex jones wuz 1 uv teh horses dat pulled teh presidential wagon across teh finish lin bak en 2016.

Trump sed 2 alex i wil mak u proud. Karma winz elected

jealous ats lib losers alex iz winning...

hey luk hes nose iz gone omg le conspiracy hahahaha

gay frogs r 4 real : O

alex Jones derangement syndrome' afflicts ats libs.




posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Jones is pretty far out there. In fact, with some claims, he sounds like a nut job

But he still has free speech. He's still entitled to the protections of law, including protections from arbitrary attempts to deprive him of property or reputation.

However, they will be unsuccessful in their attempted lawsuit. Standard libel lawsuits are only successful 13% of the time. The fact that this lawsuit, however, hinges on an issue of public importance (since the parents politicized the event) and against a public figure (they publicized themselves, even worked with President Obama), it adds another layer of complexity and places more burdens on the plaintiffs.


Broadly there are four elements that the plaintiff is required to prove in a defamation lawsuit, whether for libel (a defamatory written statement, for example in a newspaper or other publication) or slander (a defamatory spoken statement.) These are as follows:

1] The statement, which must be about another person, must be false.

2] The statement must be ‘published’ to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed. Publishing in this context does not mean that it must be printed, but purely that the statement has to be ‘made available’ to someone other than the person about whom the statement was made.

3] If the nature of the statement is ‘of public concern’ the person who has published it must be at least liable in negligence. Public figures who seek to prove that they have been defamed must prove an additional element under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that in publishing the statement the defendant was acting with ‘actual malice’ (by publishing something they know to be a lie) or at least to have a total disregard for whether the statement is true or not.

4] The person about whom the defamatory statement is made must be ‘damaged’ by the statement. In some states, it is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff suffered ‘mental anguish’ as opposed to ‘damage.’


All I have to say to them is.... good luck. They're going to need it. And rightfully so, anytime you attack a Citizen's constitutional rights (especially 1A) you better be able to back it up or expect the courts to rightfully err on the side of free speech.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well I just wanted to provide one reason for why his views are relevant. There could be others too. Who knows! But yeah, I didn't care about his views back when he was just an entertainer on reality TV.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why would it have anything to do with it? Why do you want proof and context of how Jones impacts Trump's policy? I said Trump respects Alex Jones, based on Trump's own words. Just taking his word for it. I don't watch InfoWars, so I can't comment on how much it affects his policies.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
He does seems kinda nuts. Just wondering if he got bought out for acting crazy - just enforcing people who believe in ''conspiracy'' are just nuts as him..
He wasn't like that at the beginning.


edit on 2-8-2018 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Pluginn


He wasn't like that at the beginning.


My guess is, he started getting competition hence the need to go more 'out there' at every conspiracy theory.




top topics



 
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join