Alex Jones Trial/Lawsuits

I would ask you how is it so hard is to understand he hurt people and is being made to make them whole or at least make the attempt. this is not a odd concept
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me."

- The Christian Recorder, March 1862
 
I would ask you how is it so hard is to understand he hurt people and is being made to make them whole or at least make the attempt. this is not a odd concept

So, if 'he hurt people' is now grounds for billions in damages, how much do you believe the following people owe?

1. Joe Biden, for describing MAGA adherents as anti-democracy, anti-freedom, basically terrorists.
2. Hillary Clinton, for calling a huge number of people a 'basket of deplorables.'
3. Maxine Waters, for encouraging the BLM riots in 2020 that killed 30+ people, and did over a billion in damages.
4. Kamala Harris for the same.

Given all of these people have more power and influence than Alex Jones, how much does that come out to?
 
Friendly Reminder: Telling someone to go f--- themselves here edges into harassment/personal attack territory, don't do it again.
I gave the examples of Uniom Carbide, who killed people. I gave the example of the family who pushed the Opioid Epidemic onto the USA with over prescription of medication. Of Nick Sandman of the Covington kids.

And you ignored those examples completly.

I will ask again: what makes what Jones did different from literally killing people like Union Carbide? Or the media slander and attacks the likes of the Covington Kids and Kyle Rittenhouse got? Give us your logic. You can't. Your entirr argument is "Jones bad" and you have no actual methodology or logical reason, you are just bending your argument to fit the outcome you want and conveniently ignoring any issues it causes.

Go fuck yourself.
 
I was mistaken, was going off of miss remembered audio
800,000 $ a day.

he might not be able to pay all of it before then end of his life but he can keep paying on till either that or he is no longer a public risk I guess
Oh on the contrary, if we are hypothesizing that he keeps the business afloat in order to see some sort of compensation to the parents so aggrieved by his actions that they need nearly a billion dollars to be whole again. He'll need to keep the income up so why not go even worse than he already is? After all if he is already in debt for the rest of his life he might as well go even worse to try to pay it off. Keep saying crazy stuff, try to bring income as high as possible.

And if someone sues him again? Well they are just trying to take money from those poor parents that need it to be whole again. What monsters. And its not like he can be any worse in debt. Its all fictional money no one can ever expect to see anyway.

And if not, well then those poor souls never be whole again, and you are left arguing what? That he should be a slave for the rest of his life? Hell at that point life in prison with a roof over his head and three square meals a day would be better.
 
odd question but Okay
Harm means any injury, loss or damage. It can also be any material or tangible detriment. There are different types of harm like accidental harm-where the injury or damage is not caused by a tortious act; bodily harm-where there is some physical pain, illness, or impairment to the body; physical harm-where there is physical impairment of land, chattels or human body etc.
Having to read your posts causes me harm, much like Alex's words did to the "parents" of Sandy Hook. Please stop posting or I'll sue you.

That's how retarded your argument is.
 
your point? we strive for justice and are often disappointed that doesn't mean we stop trying



some headlines for those who don't care to watch
Jacob Whol, Jack Burkman plead guilty to felony for 2020 elections robocall targeting Cleveland voters



Not only a Red Herring to the current drifting discussion he was responding to but off topic to the thread topic completely as well. Impressive.
 
well both he has the means to pay compenstory damages award and the punitive should be burden enough to prevent him from doing future harm

Then why did you say both he might not be able to pay it before he died and would also accept him just not being a public risk instead?

he might not be able to pay all of it before then end of his life but he can keep paying on till either that or he is no longer a public risk I guess

You don't seem to be coherent on this issue.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top