KorbenDallas

3 hours ago, caroljane said:

Very wise of Q to get vague. It worked for Nostradamus and Jeane Dixon - what? You don't remember her?  She predicted the whole 20th century in the National Enquirer...sounds like a good fit for Q if his people could work out a deal.

Nostradamus was great!  I also liked some of Edgar Cayce's ramblings associated with the pyramids.  There's future knowledge in there, you just gotta know where to look!

Q's a punk tho.

Sad!

Ah, the good ol days, anyone here agree with this?

I am sad about it, I liked him as a Presidential candidate, though I didn't agree with him on everything, him being a POW and being able to do what he did afterward earned my respect.

I'm sad to see him go, it appears he did well raising his children, too.

If he runs in 2020 I bet he'll win...

13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From today's early morning broadcast of an interview with President Trump, by Fox News's Ainsley Earhardt.

Good lord, nearly every phrase out of his mouth needs a fact check

Sad!

Space Force!

On 8/21/2018 at 10:42 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Don't forget about Adobe Voco and Lyrebird. You know this technology in a refined stage is already in the hands of billionaires. I think the reason they haven't started bombarding the public with fake audio is because the billionaires on both sides have it. So it's a standoff reminiscent of mutually assured destruction. If one guys does it, the other will, too.

But somebody is going to slip up one day as the temptation is more than some humans can bear to make a recording of a hated enemy saying stupid shit in a realistic manner. Then kaboom. Things will get quite colorful and entertaining.

 

Michael

We have survived fraud and false charges with photoshop and video editing technology, so I think we'll survive Voco and Lyrebird, and similar technologies...

Lefty scum!

If the N-word tape existed and we all heard it, it wouldn't change a thing.

Hell, Trump got caught on tape saying "grab 'em by the p*ssy"----and then he had evangelical Christians vote for him in large numbers.

So Cohen paid off some women for Trump... nobody will care.

It's a sad state of morality out there, and Trump represents it all.

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The ACLU is finally getting involved in the assault on Alex Jones.

And the article is in the Huffington Post, of all places.

ACLU: Alex Jones Social Media Bans Are ‘Worrisome’

Bill Maher is also against these bans on Alex Jones. From The Hill:

Bill Maher criticizes social media bans: ‘Alex Jones gets to speak’

This isn't much, yet, but it's starting. When lefties can't hold onto the ACLU and Bill Maher on an explosive issue like the assault on Alex Jones this far in advance of the midterms, they've got trouble coming.

I expect this crack in the dam to become a flood quite soon.

Michael

So the ACLU, HuffPo, and Bill Mahr are the good guys now in  your estimate?

I'm confused.

Conspiracy theory dogs, courtesy of the Tonight Show:

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Matt Drudge very rarely tweets. And when he does, he deletes the tweet after a small amount of time.

That's why I took a screenshot of what he tweeted one hour ago.

He says about Alex Jones: "Takes a licking and keeps on ticking..."

Michael

I accidentally read the Drudge quote at first to be, "Takes a licking and keeps on tricking."

30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

For a more pensive mood, pathos, empathy, the inimitable stylings of PINGTR1P ...

 

Dang almost had me until he picked up the phone and lied about the White House calling.

Good guy, that Alex.

Good guy!

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

That's a premise I would check.

It depends on the category you put them in.

For example, the first is done by insider leaders and the second is done by their minions. Both have the same goal.

Don't you see the possibility of some conceptual connections there? Not so different after all.

Another similarity. Maybe there are legal problems on both ends.

You may not see it, but legal problems are what's coming.

And the elitist crony idiots will probably get giant social media companies declared public utility or something like that. Definitely, antitrust stuff is coming.

I'm not in favor of this, but I'm also not in favor of a tiger biting off my arm. But when you ignore the nature of politicians or tigers, these things happen.

Michael

With that premise to check, it's also possible that Alex Jones faked the DDOS attacks and brought down his own website to hoax people about it, so that he could point the finger at whoever he wanted.  We're talking about a guy who had one of his people trying to convince people that Hitler was still alive at 120 years old, a guy who has tried to trick people into thinking water was contaminated and the frogs were turning gay, a guy that tried to convince people that chimeras were being created.  Alex Jones is a hoaxer, and I wouldn't put it past him to hoax his own website being "under attack".

So where does this whole thing fall in Alex Jones's heroic journey?  Test, trials, and enemies...?  Martyrdom...?

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Exactly right.

It's one of the reasons I don't participate in an Objectivist movement. 

Too many people in O-Land think government interference in the economy is capitalism according to Ayn Rand if the politicians call it "free trade." Or they think social media giants collecting information on everybody and sharing it with the government (and being weaponized by the government, and a whole host of government integrations into their companies) is the equivalent of private property. Way too many things like that...

Okay this confused me because I don't consider myself to be partaking in an "Objectivist movement".  If I had to "classify" myself I'd say I'm an independent Objectivist, I guess?  Don't know if that helps.

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

And, of course, the people waging a DDOS attack on the Infowars site are merely exercising their private property rights as owners of hacking bots. So Alex knew better when he set up a news site. He knew this could happen, so it's his fault.

 

For some people, if they don't like someone, gang-up attacks on that person are apparently all good and rational and principled.

But when the same thing happens to them (as it always ends up happening if this crap is not cut short--and they never think it will happen to them), suddenly they frame principles differently and even get sanctimonious about it. Suddenly they are victims yelling about the unfairness of it all...

I've seen this too many times to count.

Michael

The DDOS attacks are different than the social media bans.  Even though Alex Jones's content is crap, the DDOS attacks are wrong and Alex's website and property should be protected.

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

With all due respect, bullshit.

Private on paper only.

Crony corporatism (especially government plus private ownership or collusion through front groups) is not what Ayn Rand meant by private property. 

Any company that can be and is weaponized by the government is not private except in the doublespeak you are using.

So spare me the master of the obvious rationalizations.

The "obvious rationalizations" are what's really going on here, though.

20 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Which rules?

My understanding (and please correct me with some cites if I'm wrong) is that there are no specific rules that have been identified as having been broken in the banning and other punishments, but rather a mob of people (and perhaps bots?) signaled their coordinated or coincidental displeasure. Torches and pitchforks were tallied, and the undefined magic numbers were reached to equal a verdict of "hate" crimes. Pretty much post hoc or ex post facto, or quae semper.

J

 

Facebook, Twitter, etc. have all released statements of which rules were violated.  You can look them up with a Google search

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Still, it boils down to what kind of world do you want to live in? One were people are free to say what they think, or one where ideas in public speech are controlled by gatekeepers? Especially around election times?

The companies are private, when Alex Jones signed up for these services he signed agreements that the content he posts is within their rules.  From memory, Alex Jones either heard about Youtube banning him or it was that he received warnings from Youtube---the point is, Jones knew they were looking to remove his channel because he was not within their rules, yet he continued posting.  This isn't the government censoring free speech, it is Youtube looking after their brand, standards, shareholders, etc.  I'd bet they contacted lawyers before banning Jones to make sure they are well within their rights.  This is a business removing someone for not following their rules.

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Did you see how Media Matters reported that?

I just now watched to the video they posted (the one you embedded). Alex said people need to have their "battle rifles" ready by their bedside. He was saying to get ready to ward off attacks, not go out and shoot up people.

Yea, and Alex took a really long pause before saying it as if he were thinking about his words carefully.  There does appear to be some context dropping by Media Matters.  In my opinion what is happening is these companies are banning him for his body of work, yet are trying to find specific instances to warrant a ban.  I'm saying this because I think this is what is going on, not because I'm defending him.  I'm definitely not a fan of his.