Alex Jones banned from Youtube, Podcasts, etc.

[AZGrizFan]

The founders explained not only how but why it should be improved...and something, something, omelette...

Jefferson famously wanted the Constitution to expire every 20 years because he didn't want dead people to govern the living. George Washington wrote letters that the Constitution was imperfect.

The founding fathers were radical philosophers; they didn't shape the Constitution so it can be followed for hundreds of years like some sort of religious text. They'd have laughed at Constitutionalists today.

These guys believed that the People should govern themselves however they want. That's how far ahead of their time they were; that even today, we're not as ballsy as them to revamp the Constitution.

I mean FFS, they even went through a different constitution before the current one. I'm glad they didn't think like today's society: "Well we ratified the Articles of Confederation, but we must stick to it forever and make it extremely difficult to make changes for all future people." F that, they just threw it out.

But it WAS recognized as imperfect and a system was established so it CAN be changed. That's the part you seem to gloss over, just because it's "extremely difficult". Yeah, dude...It SHOULD be difficult. FFS, we don't need a constitution so easily changed that we're careening all over the fucking place as a society/country based on who is in the white house or who has control of congress. Go back and read 88's post again. Then read it again. Because you're OBVIOUSLY not getting it.

[CID1990]

"HURITAGE NOT HATE!!", says guy with General Jenkins avatar, Confederate flag and Jefferson Davis quote in his siggy... and thinks "negroes" are "undesirables".

You didn't answer the question.

That's generally the point behind fallacious logic (ad hominem, in this case)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

[CID1990]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

Well then Hogan said it best - hop right on it

or Annie get your gun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

Blaming the constitution for your or anybody’s lot in life is just a whole lotta loser talk.

At the end of the day, your life will be exactly what you put into it. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not some zero-sum game where for me to get more, you have to get less. But you’ll never convince me that I should give up even MORE of my hard earned money because there’s some poor unfortunate soul who doesn’t have a pot to piss in. 99% of the time, the lack of a pot is due exclusively to their prior life choices, so excuse me if I don’t shed too many tears for them. And the ones who are NOT downtrodden for that reason? I already help with time, energy and money. And lots of all three.

[CitadelGrad]

You didn't answer the question.

That's generally the point behind fallacious logic (ad hominem, in this case)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And our resident Appalachian 'tard attributed the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig to Jefferson Davis.

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

You seem to be forgetting WHY they tossed out the Articles of Confederation. Their Constitution was an attempt to form a more perfect union.

[kalm]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

Not sure if that's entirely true but it's a very interesting notion.

[UNI88]

I'm not sure what is the problem
here

The Constitution was written with a built in mechanism for change - a mechanism for dumping it and completely re-writing it, if we so desire

so why is Treep troubled?

(that's a rhetorical question klamjelly)

Gents - the complete revamp of the Constitution is not the sword I'm going to fall on; this is more of a thought than anything. As I've mentioned though, we can do better in the 21st century.

And yes, the framers built in a mechanism for change - which they thought appropriate for them. But you're missing the big picture: People can govern themselves however they want. We can throw out anything if there's a will, including Article V, but we've decided to govern ourselves based on Article V.

Again, take the original Articles of Confederation - the law of the land at the time. Under its letter, it took 13 states to amend it. And what did the framers do with the approval of nine states? They threw out the whole thing and wrote an entirely new Constitution.

The founding fathers are radical philosophers, not letter-of-the-law people.

You want change but are you ok with the Republicans leading the effort?

[UNI88]

Alex Jones and the very real fears of many white men

I don't know how to explain to Alex Jones's listeners that the groups they see as so scary are actually the groups they have spent decades scaring. I don't know what to do about people who want the playing field to be level now but didn't notice or care whether it was level before. I don't know whether to be patient or enraged.

Interesting commentary with a lot of truth in it. I realize that the playing field wasn't level before and I understand and support the desire to level it. What I don't agree with or support is that it's ok if the pendulum swings the other way. Our objective should be a level playing field for all not to make todays white males pay for the sins of white males in the past.

The other point the commentator misses or glosses over is that while white males spent decades (or even centuries) scaring other groups, I and many like me weren't personally participating in that scaring and neither were my/our ancestors. Isn't it also wrong to judge me and all white males as guilty by association?

[css75]

You’ve obviously never studied the Constitution. Oh, that’s right: you want to scrap the Constitution and start all over.

I respect the Constitution for what it is: a revolutionary 18th century document on how to run government. However, it's severely outdated and flawed in how it approaches American values.

Other civilized nations regularly reform their Constitutions; yet we stick with ours because a handful of elite men in 1788 decided that it takes an inordinate amount of states - most of which have too much power for their population size - to make any meaningful change. Frankly it's a ridiculous system.

Welcome to the 21st century - America can do better.

Yes, America can, by going back to it and stop the activists judges from ruining it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

@ trip having another meltdown.

Here is the video recap of this thread:

phpBB [video]

[BDKJMU]

“Bans don’t seem to be lessening reach of Alex Jones, InfoWars

....InfoWars continues to see more than 1 million page visits per day and has trended upward this month, according to Amazon’s Alexa website traffic report, which also said InfoWars averages more than 25 million page views per month.

Consumers still can access InfoWars through the same tech companies that just banned it. Google still offers the Infowars app for Android users, and Apple customers can download it through the App Store.

As of Friday, the show’s phone app remained near the top of the charts in both the Apple App and Google Play stores. Infowars Official, an app that lets viewers stream Jones’ shows and read news of the day, was ranked fourth among trending apps in the Google Play store Friday. In the news category on Apple’s App Store, Infowars earned the fourth slot under the top free apps, behind Twitter and News Break, a local and breaking news service, revealing a sudden boost of user downloads.

....On Twitter, where Jones hasn’t been banned, his follower count has reached almost 900,000....

....In a way, Curry said, Jones’ banishment from major websites has helped the host, giving him ammunition to rile up his followers and further promote his initiatives....

...Curry, the podcast host, said the best move might have been to do nothing, as Twitter has done.

“It’s a desperate move to not have political talk on these platforms,” Curry said. “And in a way, it’s already backfiring. It’s already hurting them.”....”
https://www.mystatesman.com/business/ba ... qZDYMVQjO/

Fakebook amd Youtube. All they’ve done is cause Jones/Infowars to grow in reach & audience. Idiots.

[kalm]

Alex Jones and the very real fears of many white men

I don't know how to explain to Alex Jones's listeners that the groups they see as so scary are actually the groups they have spent decades scaring. I don't know what to do about people who want the playing field to be level now but didn't notice or care whether it was level before. I don't know whether to be patient or enraged.

Interesting commentary with a lot of truth in it. I realize that the playing field wasn't level before and I understand and support the desire to level it. What I don't agree with or support is that it's ok if the pendulum swings the other way. Our objective should be a level playing field for all not to make todays white males pay for the sins of white males in the past.

The other point the commentator misses or glosses over is that while white males spent decades (or even centuries) scaring other groups, I and many like me weren't personally participating in that scaring and neither were my/our ancestors. Isn't it also wrong to judge me and all white males as guilty by association?

I called up Robin DiAngelo to work through this. She's a sociologist whose new book, "White Fragility," explores why white people have a hard time talking about race. But she also delves into masculinity, and we talked about how some lessons about race are applicable to gender.

She talked about how men and white people (she's white, so am I) can be reluctant to open their eyes to sexism or racism. Because once we see it, and once we realize what other groups have been going through, it's horrific. It requires deep self-reflection; it can make us wonder if we really are the good people we've believed ourselves to be.

It can also make us defensive. We'd rather see racism and sexism as "explicit, intentional acts of meanness," she says — and because many of us have never been intentionally mean, we can choose to believe we haven't been racist or sexist. We can craftily separate ourselves from the bad people. When actually, racism and sexism are both bad societal structures. We inherited them. Our willful blindness supports them.

Are chicks going to eventually feel guilt for toxic feminism emasculating American culture?

[kalm]

Holy shit is this well done...

phpBB [video]

[∞∞∞]

I swear you can't make this shit up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hiles.html

Conspiracy theorist peddler Alex Jones whose at times transphobic broadcasts have been removed from YouTube, appears to watch transgender pornography on his phone, as seen in a clip promoting his brand.

The host behind InfoWars was hocking his 'personal wellness' products on an affiliate's site and when he clicked away from the page one of the open tabs revealed a page titled 'Naughty tbabe Marissa Mi…'

And Alex Jones' non-sensical response:

“I saw a couple of news articles about that, it’s ridiculous. I was like looking up some reporter we’re trying to hire today and punched in some number and it popped up porn on my phone. Everybody has had porn pop-up on their phone, hundreds of times. So I’m sitting there with a phone on air, showing it to everybody, cause I couldn’t get a URL up in the studio, and then like some thing pops up and oh my god. And I looked at it and it wasn’t — the news blurred it out because it was nothing there. They blurred it to then say something was there, and then you went to it and it was some porn menu. I probably had porn menus pop up 500 times on my phone, so I appreciate your call. It’s insane ladies and gentlemen.”

[css75]

Alex Jones is at this point in time probably as credible as the MSM.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk