Just Wow

[JFW657]

52 minutes ago, aent said:

I don't like Alex Jones and don't believe anything he says, but freedom of speech is important. If you don't defend the freedom of speech of Alex Jones, you don't believe in freedom of speech because you clearly don't believe in it and won't defend it if you disagree with it

Coupla things.... First, I don't believe being allowed or not allowed to spew propaganda and absurd conspiracy theories on a privately owned social media platform is a matter of free speech. As long as the government is not restricting what he says, then he is enjoying the same 1st amendment free speech rights as anyone else. Privately owned companies have the legal right to bar speech that ha been deemed offensive. 

Second, I think that a platform like X giving him a megaphone and a soapbox from which to bellow his garbage does more harm than the good any supposed "free speech protections" afforded him would do.

If he was merely railing against Biden and the left, that would be one thing. But the insane crap he spews is dangerous because of the kind of people it fires up and appeals to.

If Jones started his own social media platform, then of course, there would be nothing anyone could do.

But Musk can and should keep Jones banned.

I'm pretty sure Musk knows allowing a blowhard nutjob like Jones back on, will draw in more users and make him more money. 

[Ivanhoe]

7 hours ago, aent said:

I don't like Alex Jones and don't believe anything he says, but freedom of speech is important. If you don't defend the freedom of speech of Alex Jones, you don't believe in freedom of speech because you clearly don't believe in it and won't defend it if you disagree with it

Freedom of speech does not protect Alex Jones or anyone else from libel, slander or defamation.

[jrs2]

11 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Coupla things.... First, I don't believe being allowed or not allowed to spew propaganda and absurd conspiracy theories on a privately owned social media platform is a matter of free speech. As long as the government is not restricting what he says, then he is enjoying the same 1st amendment free speech rights as anyone else. Privately owned companies have the legal right to bar speech that ha been deemed offensive. 

Second, I think that a platform like X giving him a megaphone and a soapbox from which to bellow his garbage does more harm than the good any supposed "free speech protections" afforded him would do.

If he was merely railing against Biden and the left, that would be one thing. But the insane crap he spews is dangerous because of the kind of people it fires up and appeals to.

If Jones started his own social media platform, then of course, there would be nothing anyone could do.

But Musk can and should keep Jones banned.

I'm pretty sure Musk knows allowing a blowhard nutjob like Jones back on, will draw in more users and make him more money. 

slippery slope...

I can easily say to ban all Socialist talk from media because it is nothing more than insurgency propaganda of national threats trying to take the country over from within by pushing leftist narrative.  

So then what?

Jones is not a nutjob; he is a gate keeper.  He is propped up to make it look like he's a truther.  But to Democrats, anything that does not comport with the leftist narrative is nutjob talk or a conspiracy.  You call RFK Jr. a nutjob too, yet he can back up everything he says about pesticides and vaccines and the border, etc.  Your litmus test seems to be the "narrative" test, i.e., if it does not comport to the narrative then it is nutjob talk.  Case in point, you stated that you would vote for Biden again because he is doing a great job.  Yet, several leftist media outlets have polled it and he is failing.  Great job, huh?  Why, because he says he is with Bidenomics?

Anyway, Jones warned about the NWO and even showed you their books on aire- NWO plan is in fact real- one world government, religion, currency, etc.  HW Bush made two speeches about it in 1991.  Look it up.  He warned about digital currency- Washington is trying to push it through as we speak.   He pushes vitamins and iodine.  Turns out Mayo did studies on the beneficial uses of iodine and Jones was 100% correct.  He reported on the covid vaccine lawsuits in Europe. Since earlier this year, lawsuits and settlements have been getting paid out to the tune of $4.6B for vaccine related injuries and deaths which include covid.  

if you want to ban Jones, then ban Adam Schiff for being a knowing complicit liar.  Ban Jean-Pierre for never telling the truth.  Ban Biden for actually lying and getting caught four years later by the DOJ.  And while you're at it, ban a handful of leftist talking heads for spreading leftist propaganda every time they open their mouths because all it does is...wait for it...fires up the kind of people it appeals to which makes it dangerous.

[jrs2]

13 hours ago, aent said:

I don't like Alex Jones and don't believe anything he says, but freedom of speech is important. If you don't defend the freedom of speech of Alex Jones, you don't believe in freedom of speech because you clearly don't believe in it and won't defend it if you disagree with it

Alex Jones reported on the Epstein Island thing in 2015.  Epstein gets convicted a few years later.  Jones also reported that Trump was leading Hillary by double digits even though the MSM (sans LA Times) was saying she was leading by double digits in 2016.  He won by double digits.  Jones also talked about the NWO (HW Bush) and Iodine (Mayo confirmed) and covid harmful effects in Europe (later seen here).  He even called covid the Wuhan virus when leftists were claiming an Ozzy Osbourne origin. 

But he is nothing more than a gate keeper propped up to tell half truths (or full truths) at certain times.  Why?  Because The Authority knows that the country is populated 99% by idiots that wouldn't believe the Mothership existed even if it was hovering over City Hall for three hours straight- why? Because it didn't comport to their "narrative."

The Left just does not like anyone who calls a spade a spade when they are the spade and are either in denial and/or are trying to hide what they really are, which is, namely, a spade.  It just so happened that Wikileaks exposed the Left around 2014-16 on a few fronts and Jones was very vocal during that period on several issues...  So the Left hates him for being him.  The Lefts just like to go with the flow (so long as the flow is coming from the Left).  Jones does not go with the flow, but it doesn't mean that he's lying; he may be an a55hole, but it doesn't mean he's lying.

And on that note, the person that wants to "nicely" steal from me can pound sand, and the a55hole that wants to "wake me up" so the "nice" person doesn't steal from me is, well,  welcome every time.  And this should be a universal truth, not just something non-Leftists believe in.

[JFW657]

4 hours ago, jrs2 said:

slippery slope...

I can easily say to ban all Socialist talk from media because it is nothing more than insurgency propaganda of national threats trying to take the country over from within by pushing leftist narrative.  

So then what?

Jones is not a nutjob; he is a gate keeper.  He is propped up to make it look like he's a truther.  But to Democrats, anything that does not comport with the leftist narrative is nutjob talk or a conspiracy.  You call RFK Jr. a nutjob too, yet he can back up everything he says about pesticides and vaccines and the border, etc.  Your litmus test seems to be the "narrative" test, i.e., if it does not comport to the narrative then it is nutjob talk.  Case in point, you stated that you would vote for Biden again because he is doing a great job.  Yet, several leftist media outlets have polled it and he is failing.  Great job, huh?  Why, because he says he is with Bidenomics?

Anyway, Jones warned about the NWO and even showed you their books on aire- NWO plan is in fact real- one world government, religion, currency, etc.  HW Bush made two speeches about it in 1991.  Look it up.  He warned about digital currency- Washington is trying to push it through as we speak.   He pushes vitamins and iodine.  Turns out Mayo did studies on the beneficial uses of iodine and Jones was 100% correct.  He reported on the covid vaccine lawsuits in Europe. Since earlier this year, lawsuits and settlements have been getting paid out to the tune of $4.6B for vaccine related injuries and deaths which include covid.  

if you want to ban Jones, then ban Adam Schiff for being a knowing complicit liar.  Ban Jean-Pierre for never telling the truth.  Ban Biden for actually lying and getting caught four years later by the DOJ.  And while you're at it, ban a handful of leftist talking heads for spreading leftist propaganda every time they open their mouths because all it does is...wait for it...fires up the kind of people it appeals to which makes it dangerous.

You completely didn't get what I said.

You can say whatever you want about the dang ol' lib'rul media. Makes no difference to anyone but you.

It doesn't matter what you say about it, nor does it matter what I say about it. Private media companies have the legal right to regulate the speech on their platforms if it's considered offensive. 

All the rest of your post I skimmed over but didn't read.

Too much irrelevant minutiae I have no interest in.  

[aent]

18 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Coupla things.... First, I don't believe being allowed or not allowed to spew propaganda and absurd conspiracy theories on a privately owned social media platform is a matter of free speech. As long as the government is not restricting what he says, then he is enjoying the same 1st amendment free speech rights as anyone else. Privately owned companies have the legal right to bar speech that ha been deemed offensive. 

Second, I think that a platform like X giving him a megaphone and a soapbox from which to bellow his garbage does more harm than the good any supposed "free speech protections" afforded him would do.

If he was merely railing against Biden and the left, that would be one thing. But the insane crap he spews is dangerous because of the kind of people it fires up and appeals to.

If Jones started his own social media platform, then of course, there would be nothing anyone could do.

We, as a country, have common carrier laws for phone companies to make sure the phone companies cannot use their platform to prevent speech. Net neutrality is the same thing for the internet (which I might add the left has strongly pushed). These companies are supposed to be providing a platform, a dumb pipe, if they don't want to have liability for the things that happen on said platform. If they want to curate their content (beyond removing illegal content of course), they should have full liability for everything every user says, because they're no different then MSNBC or Fox News, pushing a narrative and, curating content. Big corporations like Google and Facebook should not have an exemption of liability if they are not going to allow free speech on their platforms, and this has been a change in interpretation in the law since Biden became president and, as the Twitter files has shown, abused their authority and violated the First Amendment. Again, we must remember that the main reason that many users were banned from Facebook and YouTube and Twitter was because the FBI and the Biden administration demanded and paid these private businesses to suppress free speech. That isn't right.

X, along with the other platforms, have complicated algorithms to determine what content to push to users who have not directly subscribed to any user, and X has not indicated they are going to push his content out to those who don't subscribe to him.

Alex Jones, like everyone, is liable for slander and libel, as he should be,.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, aent said:

We, as a country, have common carrier laws for phone companies to make sure the phone companies cannot use their platform to prevent speech. Net neutrality is the same thing for the internet (which I might add the left has strongly pushed). These companies are supposed to be providing a platform, a dumb pipe, if they don't want to have liability for the things that happen on said platform. If they want to curate their content (beyond removing illegal content of course), they should have full liability for everything every user says, because they're no different then MSNBC or Fox News, pushing a narrative and, curating content.

The high courts have yet to make a final ruling on whether or not common carrier status applies to social media platforms. But they're trying to write laws that push it in red controlled states like Florida and Texas of course, because the Republican governors and legislatures of both, want as much right wing propaganda as possible being belched out, in order to push the right's agenda.

For the time being though, social media platforms are not regulated as common carriers.

Net neutrality only applies to ISPs, not social media.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Big corporations like Google and Facebook should not have an exemption of liability if they are not going to allow free speech on their platforms, and this has been a change in interpretation in the law since Biden became president and, as the Twitter files has shown, abused their authority and violated the First Amendment.

The Biden administration has no authority to interpret laws and act on their interpretation.

That's what he courts are for.

And the SCOTUS is, as you might recall, packed with conservative Trump appointees.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Again, we must remember that the main reason that many users were banned from Facebook and YouTube and Twitter was because the FBI and the Biden administration demanded and paid these private businesses to suppress free speech. That isn't right.

Sounds like more right-wing mierda caballo conspiracy nonsense. 

The kind you hear from Alex Jones. 

5 hours ago, aent said:

X, along with the other platforms, have complicated algorithms to determine what content to push to users who have not directly subscribed to any user, and X has not indicated they are going to push his content out to those who don't subscribe to him.

Beside the point, which is whether a social media platform that doesn't want to associate itself with certain content can ban it.

Has nothing to do with whether or not they decide to use algorithms to push it on their users.

5 hours ago, aent said:

Alex Jones, like everyone, is liable for slander and libel, as he should be,.

So all he has to do is be more careful not to say slanderous or libelous things about specific individuals or companies. 

That leaves him free to continue spreading most of the same kinds of filthy lies and insane garbage that he had been.

If that's what Musk wants his platform associated with, that's his business.

But if he didn't want to, it should be his choice. 

 

.

Edited December 12, 2023 by JFW657

[jrs2]

18 hours ago, JFW657 said:

You completely didn't get what I said.

You can say whatever you want about the dang ol' lib'rul media. Makes no difference to anyone but you.

It doesn't matter what you say about it, nor does it matter what I say about it. Private media companies have the legal right to regulate the speech on their platforms if it's considered offensive. 

All the rest of your post I skimmed over but didn't read.

Too much irrelevant minutiae I have no interest in.  

So I think there has to be a distinction and correlation between private media versus government directives towards private companies influencing them to "regulate" speech without "official" government interference.  Elon Musk exposed how the Alphabet was doing that thru Twitter. 

And in this climate of DEI agents inside companies and institutions, influence from "bad" ESG Scores and the like, all of this comes from somewhere.  And this stuff is pushed onto society where companies are "influenced" to comply (whatever the issue)...and that's a major problem.  It's a back door way of direct government involvement so that in this example, say, the First Amendment isn't directly implicated.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

So I think there has to be a distinction and correlation between private media versus government directives towards private companies influencing them to "regulate" speech without "official" government interference.  Elon Musk exposed how the Alphabet was doing that thru Twitter. 

And in this climate of DEI agents inside companies and institutions, influence from "bad" ESG Scores and the like, all of this comes from somewhere.  And this stuff is pushed onto society where companies are "influenced" to comply (whatever the issue)...and that's a major problem.  It's a back door way of direct government involvement so that in this example, say, the First Amendment isn't directly implicated.

The government has to have some kind of influence and control over dangerous propaganda online.

And it's not like these social media platforms are banning conservative speech.

It's a certain level of speech that has cropped up over the past few years, which crosses the line from pro-conservative to the spreading of clearly and obviously false information, which we saw the results of  on J6. 

If Trumpers would stop creating a market on social media for that swill, those who produce it would just find some other places on the internet to peddle it and it wouldn't be an issue. 

Besides, aren't there other similar services to X that cater to the right? 

It's really much ado about nothing. 

[jrs2]

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

The government has to have some kind of influence and control over dangerous propaganda online.

And it's not like these social media platforms are banning conservative speech.

It's a certain level of speech that has cropped up over the past few years, which crosses the line from pro-conservative to the spreading of clearly and obviously false information, which we saw the results of  on J6. 

If Trumpers would stop creating a market on social media for that swill, those who produce it would just find some other places on the internet to peddle it and it wouldn't be an issue. 

Besides, aren't there other similar services to X that cater to the right? 

It's really much ado about nothing. 

you mean like "from the river to the sea" and "jews should die" or whatever which is interpreted away based on the context in which that is said on campus by Ivy League liberal professors?  

that second statement is a croc of sh!t. 

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, jrs2 said:

you mean like "from the river to the sea" and "jews should die" or whatever which is interpreted away based on the context in which that is said on campus by Ivy League liberal professors?  

that second statement is a croc of sh!t. 

We're talking about social media posts here, right? 

Can you supply links to reports of antisemitic remarks by liberals being allowed on any platform that also disallowed Alex Jones? 

And can you explain how the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is somehow offensive, or antisemitic or provokes violence? 

Aamof, please just explain everything you said.

Which liberal Ivy League professors are calling for Jews to die?

Who are they, where are they doing it and who is allowing them to get away with it?  

What are you talking about? 

I get the feeling you might be going of the rails again.   

 

.

Edited December 13, 2023 by JFW657

[jrs2]

18 hours ago, JFW657 said:

We're talking about social media posts here, right? 

Can you supply links to reports of antisemitic remarks by liberals being allowed on any platform that also disallowed Alex Jones? 

And can you explain how the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is somehow offensive, or antisemitic or provokes violence? 

Aamof, please just explain everything you said.

Which liberal Ivy League professors are calling for Jews to die?

Who are they, where are they doing it and who is allowing them to get away with it?  

What are you talking about? 

I get the feeling you might be going of the rails again.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harvard-faculty-defend-president-antisemitism-comments_n_6577488be4b09724b4350f0d

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, jrs2 said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harvard-faculty-defend-president-antisemitism-comments_n_6577488be4b09724b4350f0d

So is that the exaggeration bandwagon of butthurt you're going to jump on? 

Fine.

Let's take a look at exactly what she and the other college presidents said.

From your linked article....

Quote

During a heated exchange between the (college) presidents and Rep. Elise Stefanik, the New York Republican asked whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their universities’ codes of conduct.

Whether such calls violate university policies “depends on the context,” Gay answered. “When it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.”

“I’ve sought to confront hate while preserving free expression,” she said. “This is difficult work, and I know that I have not always gotten it right.”

Magill and Kornbluth gave similar responses to Stefanik, leading the exchange to go viral and cause widespread backlash over the presidents’ soft answers. All three college presidents repeatedly condemned antisemitism during the hearing, but their remarks on whether some pro-Palestinian phrases would qualify as harassment of Jewish people still sparked outrage.

“I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures,” she told the Crimson.

So, that's it???

That's supposed to be as bad or worse than Alex Jones spouting hate-filled conspiracy nonsense non-stop day after day??? 

That's your example of drooling antisemitism that is supposed to illustrate how much worse than the likes of Jones we dang ol' lib'ruls are???

Well I guess your point is irrefutable, isn't it?

I mean, you can just feel the Ku Klux Klan/Aryan Brotherhood level of "Jew-hatin' " just dripping from her words, can't you, Trumpy-boy? 

Seriously though, you cannot seriously expect me to buy that false parallel, can you?

And how funny is it, the way you hard core righties are always bashing mainstream media outlets as totally unreliable and how you're always hammering and yammering about "sensitive snowflakes".... but as soon as it suits your purpose to quote one of the most hated by the right examples of the lib'rul media - aka HuffPo - and to engage in the same kind of overly sensitive, offended snowflake hand-wringing by joining the condemnation chorus against these college professors who were obviously under stress while trying to walk a tightrope between condemnation of abhorrent behavior and preserving free speech, you jump on the bandwagon with both feet faster than a starving dog on a box of milk bones. 

If that was the only example you could provide of liberals expressing hate-filled antisemitic views ----> FAIL.  

[jrs2]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:07 PM, JFW657 said:

So is that the exaggeration bandwagon of butthurt you're going to jump on? 

Fine.

Let's take a look at exactly what she and the other college presidents said.

From your linked article....

So, that's it???

That's supposed to be as bad or worse than Alex Jones spouting hate-filled conspiracy nonsense non-stop day after day??? 

That's your example of drooling antisemitism that is supposed to illustrate how much worse than the likes of Jones we dang ol' lib'ruls are???

Well I guess your point is irrefutable, isn't it?

I mean, you can just feel the Ku Klux Klan/Aryan Brotherhood level of "Jew-hatin' " just dripping from her words, can't you, Trumpy-boy? 

Seriously though, you cannot seriously expect me to buy that false parallel, can you?

And how funny is it, the way you hard core righties are always bashing mainstream media outlets as totally unreliable and how you're always hammering and yammering about "sensitive snowflakes".... but as soon as it suits your purpose to quote one of the most hated by the right examples of the lib'rul media - aka HuffPo - and to engage in the same kind of overly sensitive, offended snowflake hand-wringing by joining the condemnation chorus against these college professors who were obviously under stress while trying to walk a tightrope between condemnation of abhorrent behavior and preserving free speech, you jump on the bandwagon with both feet faster than a starving dog on a box of milk bones. 

If that was the only example you could provide of liberals expressing hate-filled antisemitic views ----> FAIL.  

LOL. There is no tightrope.  Watch the debate on Piers Morgan between Dershowitz and Finkelstein- Finkelstein being an anti-Zionist (from a week ago).  How many times does the anti-Zionist bring up "conservative" in that debate while attacking Netanyahu?  Saying he's guilty of crimes he has to answer for to the UN?  Now all the sudden retaliating is a "conservative" trait?  So, what, the liberal Leftist response should be "those 200 dead people deserved what they got for being oppressors"?

It's like two kids.  The one hits the other one- THEN he starts crying telling his victim he can't retaliate.  That's all a Marxist tactic.  You can apply it to so many situations.   They did it on October 7 just minutes after this happened; protesting with ready made signs.  Convenient.  And the fact that on Morgan's show, this is the second person to bring up political ideology is pathetic and exposes what Hamas and the Palestinians are all about- it is yet another form of "we're being oppressed;" yet another class of individual trying to tear down society.  He even went as far as to say or allude that from the perspective of Hamas, if Israel is a democracy, then their current leadership is a reflection of the will of its citizens.  Therefore, if the leaders are criminals, then so are the voters that put them there, and they got what they deserved on October 7.

So bring this forward to these poor victim professors...so stressed out about their tightrope... Who are we kidding about this? They're a bunch of leftists anyway.  Anything they have to say is mere propaganda to hide their party politick stance on this issue.

Victims of Israel, victim of Colonial Powers, victims of climate; it's all the same Leftist sh!t.  And Leftists don't like it because Israel actually fights back and doesn't put up with this bullsh!t.  

They poked the Grizzly.

[Ivanhoe]

Another day another Trump Crusader in the Villages arrested for voter fraud. I think this is up to five now, and counting…

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

LOL. There is no tightrope.  Watch the debate on Piers Morgan between Dershowitz and Finkelstein- Finkelstein being an anti-Zionist (from a week ago).  How many times does the anti-Zionist bring up "conservative" in that debate while attacking Netanyahu?  Saying he's guilty of crimes he has to answer for to the UN?  Now all the sudden retaliating is a "conservative" trait?  So, what, the liberal Leftist response should be "those 200 dead people deserved what they got for being oppressors"?

It's like two kids.  The one hits the other one- THEN he starts crying telling his victim he can't retaliate.  That's all a Marxist tactic.  You can apply it to so many situations.   They did it on October 7 just minutes after this happened; protesting with ready made signs.  Convenient.  And the fact that on Morgan's show, this is the second person to bring up political ideology is pathetic and exposes what Hamas and the Palestinians are all about- it is yet another form of "we're being oppressed;" yet another class of individual trying to tear down society.  He even went as far as to say or allude that from the perspective of Hamas, if Israel is a democracy, then their current leadership is a reflection of the will of its citizens.  Therefore, if the leaders are criminals, then so are the voters that put them there, and they got what they deserved on October 7.

So bring this forward to these poor victim professors...so stressed out about their tightrope... Who are we kidding about this? They're a bunch of leftists anyway.  Anything they have to say is mere propaganda to hide their party politick stance on this issue.

Victims of Israel, victim of Colonial Powers, victims of climate; it's all the same Leftist sh!t.  And Leftists don't like it because Israel actually fights back and doesn't put up with this bullsh!t.  

They poked the Grizzly.

So you're still trying to equate a soft answer on the condemnation of hate speech out of some women college Presidents, to the day in day out broken fire hydrant gusher of paranoid lunatic vomit out of a fat, bloviating slob like Alex Jones? 

And still trying to distract attention away from the core issue, by going off on various rambling tangents, too I see.

SSDD. 

All those dead Palestinian women, children and babies that have been obliterated by Netan-yahoo's American bought and paid for rockets and bombs must really make you cackle with glee.

Especially the unborn babies that you right-wingers always pretend to care so much about.

But then again, they were unborn Muslim babies, so I guess they don't count as far as right-wing 'Muricans are concerned.

Retaliation is one thing, but slaughtering thousands of civilians in the process is beyond the pale.

Here's a thought... why was Israel not on its guard for this? It's come to light that they were warned about an attack like this being imminent but they did nothing. Maybe they should retaliate against some of their own officials. 

Or maybe.... and you Alex Jones conspiracy geeks should relate to this.... maybe the Israeli government knew all along it was coming and let it happen just so they could have an excuse to wantonly attack Gaza in retaliation, massacre Palestinians by the thousands, then set up a government structure by which Israel ends up encroaching on even more Palestinian territory, pushing out more Palestinians and then building more Jewish settlements.  

[orange87]

Giuliani is ordered to pay $148 million to Georgia election workers he defamed

Article: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/15/1219048410/giuliani-defamation-trial-money-georgia-election-workers?fbclid=IwAR1PWV9bB1GU0WH7tT46Q1SHxLXgL_NW7zzjBEkNqqVKqUaVoJcwpgens4w

Mother of 6-year-old who shot teacher sentenced to 2 years

Article: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4362563-mother-of-six-year-old-who-shot-teacher-sentenced-to-two-years/?fbclid=IwAR2gUO9BoW2W84jAGZFkZKLK9zKCHGnlGU1-Z9lfOVmlVkjMFXCpDVv-_Xo

[JFW657]

4 minutes ago, orange87 said:

Giuliani is ordered to pay $148 million to Georgia election workers he defamed

Article: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/15/1219048410/giuliani-defamation-trial-money-georgia-election-workers?fbclid=IwAR1PWV9bB1GU0WH7tT46Q1SHxLXgL_NW7zzjBEkNqqVKqUaVoJcwpgens4w

Lots luck ever seeing a dime of it.

I think Giuliani is pretty much tapped out by now.

The price of hitching one's wagon to the Trump Train. 

[orange87]

Celebrity Net Worth has Giuliani's net worth at -$150 million. Mike Lindell is listed at $0. lol

[JFW657]

49 minutes ago, orange87 said:

Celebrity Net Worth has Giuliani's net worth at -$150 million. Mike Lindell is listed at $0. lol

I saw one estimate at less than $50 million.

Plus, he's got several other lawsuits pending.

So between any other potential judgements, other debts and all the legal fees he's going to incur, there probably won't be much left to divvy up. 

I'm guessing he's got a tidy sum tucked away in Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts. 

[orange87]

20 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I saw one estimate at less than $50 million.

Plus, he's got several other lawsuits pending.

So between any other potential judgements, other debts and all the legal fees he's going to incur, there probably won't be much left to divvy up. 

I'm guessing he's got a tidy sum tucked away in Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts. 

Note the minus sign in front of the $150 million. Giuliani has negative net worth.

[orange87]

[orange87]

Entitled illegal immigrants protest in NYC because they "only" get 2 months free stay in shelters meant for U.S. citizens who now have to sleep on the streets because illegal immigrants are flooding into the American taxpayer funded shelters.

Article: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/migrant-families-rally-end-new-yorks-new-60-105793539?fbclid=IwAR2SxYrKwmhgfq9RhefOxTIsTaDu-qpDpwbRHtnbKMj1_PpEu7LE8N5_YF4

[jrs2]

18 hours ago, orange87 said:

Entitled illegal immigrants protest in NYC because they "only" get 2 months free stay in shelters meant for U.S. citizens who now have to sleep on the streets because illegal immigrants are flooding into the American taxpayer funded shelters.

Article: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/migrant-families-rally-end-new-yorks-new-60-105793539?fbclid=IwAR2SxYrKwmhgfq9RhefOxTIsTaDu-qpDpwbRHtnbKMj1_PpEu7LE8N5_YF4

it's funny...they allow in illegal immigrants and purported "refugees" who have nothing, yet, at the same time, put immigrant business owners on waiting lists through the EB-1 Visa program.  So they don't want people with money emigrating into the US...rather, only penniless individuals so they can place them on the welfare rolls and make them dependent on Uncle Sam.

[jack]

20 hours ago, orange87 said:

Entitled illegal immigrants protest in NYC because they "only" get 2 months free stay in shelters meant for U.S. citizens who now have to sleep on the streets because illegal immigrants are flooding into the American taxpayer funded shelters.

Article: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/migrant-families-rally-end-new-yorks-new-60-105793539?fbclid=IwAR2SxYrKwmhgfq9RhefOxTIsTaDu-qpDpwbRHtnbKMj1_PpEu7LE8N5_YF4

Well, if it is a problem, they can go back home. 

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

it's funny...they allow in illegal immigrants and purported "refugees" who have nothing, yet, at the same time, put immigrant business owners on waiting lists through the EB-1 Visa program.  So they don't want people with money emigrating into the US...rather, only penniless individuals so they can place them on the welfare rolls and make them dependent on Uncle Sam.

The refugee program is a joke. Good intentions with horrible execution.