Alex Jones: They are Coming After Drudge, Infowars and Breitbart

[TheCount]

Actually it is Alex Jones making the claim being quoted on Breitbart- not Drudge.

Drudge speaks on Infowars which is then reported by Breitbart and then the report is posted on Drudge.


It's the circle of life for bullshit news.

 

[ZENemy]

The answer to 1776 is tangy tangerine.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The answer to 1776 is tangy tangerine.

Is that a "super male vitality" flavor?

"Because there is a war on for your _____"

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Is that a "super male vitality" flavor?

"Because there is a war on for your _____"

Precious bodily fluids?

 

[juleswin]

The problem with Alex Jones is that he has cried wolf for so long that when the feds actually come for him, no reasonable person would believe him. Anyone remember the time he took down his Obama deception video claiming that youtube took it down because he was speaking the truth? And then youtube released a statement saying they did not take it down that the video was removed by youtube channel.

 

[Danke]

The problem with Alex Jones is that he has cried wolf for so long that when the feds actually come for him, no reasonable person would believe him. Anyone remember the time he took down his Obama deception video claiming that youtube took it down because he was speaking the truth? And then youtube released a statement saying they did not take it down that the video was removed by youtube channel.

Do you believe YouTube? Not taking sides, but you are apparently.

 

[juleswin]

Do you believe YouTube? Not taking sides, but you are apparently.

Oops, just went back and watched the videos from 6-7 yrs ago about it and at first he thought it was youtube that removed the video but soon changed it to "we were hacked and the number 1 watched version of it was illegally removed by the hackers" Youtube restored the video with its original viewer count and everyone was happy.

But to your question, I believe youtube over a hyper, show man, attention whore entertainer any day

 

[Danke]

Oops, just went back and watched the videos from 6-7 yrs ago about it and at first he thought it was youtube that removed the video but soon changed it to "we were hacked and the number 1 watched version of it was illegally removed by the hackers" Youtube restored the video with its original viewer count and everyone was happy.

But to your question, I believe youtube over a hyper, show man, attention whore entertainer any day

 

[Zippyjuan]

Anyone who thinks their vote counts is dumber than a box of rocks. In light of all the shenanigans that went on when Dr.Paul ran you must have been a sleep at the wheel, both times.

Some of you better wake the hell up, because there is no savior out there to save our liberties but us!!

Better stand for liberty or fall for tyranny--those are your choices.

How does one promote liberty without voting? How do you get politicians to act the way you would like them to?

Not voting supports the status quo.

 

[donnay]

How does one promote liberty without voting? How do you get politicians to act the way you would like them to?

Not voting supports the status quo.

So you think voting promotes liberty?

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
~ Joseph Stalin


Democracy as Benjamin Franklin defined:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

 

[Zippyjuan]

So again, how can you promote liberty without the ballot box? Or is is hopeless?

 

[Occam's Banana]

So again, how can you promote liberty without the ballot box? Or is is hopeless?

I can think of two ways, right off the top of my head:


One.

Two (to be considered with the phrase "don't tread on me" in mind).

 

[dannno]

“Like a year ago, Drudge came to visit me. He said, ‘Listen, I met with the Supreme Court Justice. He has been told get behind banning Free Speech. It’s happening next year.’

What the hell does this comment have to do with Donald Trump???

 

[Weston White]

He is promoting a candidate who is the same as or worse than Hillary on every important issue.

I am personally not pro-Trump and will not be bothering to vote this election, but Hillary is much, much, much worse an option than Trump. Hillary is a natural born killer, is a political fixer, is a lifelong political blue blood with trail of connections and corruption that leads all the way back to the 70s. "Killary" simply just give not a f-bomb about f-bombs.

 

[pcosmar]

Trump recently went rogue on the elite,

and he got people to believe that.

Quite the Showman.

@unimpressed

 

[pcosmar]

So again, how can you promote liberty without the ballot box?

Liberty has never been won at the ballot box.

ever.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So again, how can you promote liberty without the ballot box? Or is is hopeless?

"How can you promote liberty [or, presumably, any other cause] without the ballot box?"

Go ask Jesus of Nazareth.

Or Martin Luther.
Or Martin Luther King, Jr.
Or Samuel Adams.
Or Lao Tzu.
Or Marcus Junius Brutus.
Or John Locke.
Or Socrates.
Or Frederick Douglass.
Or Spartacus.
Or Mahatma Gandhi.
Or William Travis.
Or William Wallace.
Or Frederic Bastiat.
Or Sophie Scholl.
Or Ludwig von Mises.
Or William Lloyd Garrison.

Or any of far too many others to count (the names of most of whom are lost to us today) ...

Some of those men and women succeeded in their causes, and others did not (at least in the short term) - but few of them, I think, would have much if any patience with your absurd pretense at not understanding how a cause can be "promote[d ...] without the ballot box." In fact, such pretense is a gratuitous insult to the legacies of all those people, known and unknown.

Or is it a pretense? Are you really so fatuous as to imagine that no means adequate to the achievement of the causes those people took up were or are possible without some number of other people making marks on pieces of paper and then putting those pieces of paper into boxes, so that the marks on the pieces of paper in those boxes could then be tabulated and the results announced?

Not voting supports the status quo.

At best, voting is merely an epilogue. Assuming that any voting at all is involved in some significant or fundamental change, or in the achievement of some cause - and throughout the overwhelmingly vast majority of history, it has not been so involved - it is only after, and not before, such a change or cause has been (often lengthily and laboriously) "promoted" and striven for that any relevant voting is done. And even when such voting is "successful," it only serves to illustrate and confirm that the ground has already shifted. But how do you suppose the ground shifts in the first place? By magic?

"Not voting supports the status quo," you say? You have it just exactly wrong. If anything, voting is what supports the status quo. All the things you are pleased to dismiss or ignore (by lumping them all together under the phrase "not voting") are the only things that can actually challenge the status quo. Again, just ask Jesus - or Sam Adams - or ...

 

[donnay]

"How can you promote liberty [or any other cause] without the ballot box?"

Go ask Jesus of Nazareth.

Or Martin Luther.
Or Martin Luther King, Jr.
Or Samuel Adams.
Or Lao Tzu.
Or Marcus Junius Brutus.
Or John Locke.
Or Socrates.
Or Frederick Douglass.
Or Spartacus.
Or Mahatma Gandhi.
Or William Travis.
Or Frederic Bastiat.
Or Sophie Scholl.
Or Ludwig von Mises.
Or William Lloyd Garrison.

Or any of far too many others to count (the names of most of whom are lost to us today) ...

Some of those men and women succeeded in their causes, and others did not (at least in the short term) - but few of them, I think, would have much if any patience with your absurd pretense at not understanding how a cause can be "promote[d] ... without the ballot box." In fact, such pretense is a gratuitous insult to the legacies of all those people, known and unknown.

Or is it a pretense? Are you really so fatuous as to imagine that no means adequate to the achievement of the causes those people took up were or are possible without some number of other people making marks on pieces of paper and then putting those pieces of paper into boxes, so that the marks on the pieces of paper in those boxes could then be tabulated and the results announced?



At best, voting is merely an epilogue. Assuming that any voting at all is involved in some significant or fundamental change, or in the achievement of some cause - and throughout the overwhelmingly vast majority of history, it has not been so involved - it is only after, and not before, such a change or cause has been (often lengthily and laboriously) "promoted" and striven for that any relevant voting is done. And even when such voting is "successful," it only serves to illustrate and confirm that the ground has already shifted. But how do you suppose the ground shifts in the first place? By magic?

"Not voting supports the status quo," you say? You have it just exactly wrong. If anything, voting is what supports the status quo. All the things you are pleased to dismiss or ignore (by lumping them all together under the phrase "not voting") are the only things that can actually challenge the status quo. Again, just ask Jesus - or Sam Adams - or ...

Well said.

 

[Lucille]

How does one promote liberty without voting? How do you get politicians to act the way you would like them to?

Not voting supports the status quo.

After all these years playing statist provocateur on these forums, you still haven't learned a GD thing...not even accidentally!

 

[AuH20]

In all creeping totalitarian regimes, they eventually come for the opposition.