Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 30, 2017

Hoover: The FBI must convince the public Oswald acted alone.

Tip of the iceberg...
#realjournalism

More

all of you rejects yelling conspiracy theorist for decades, well, you know what you can do...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well, if Alex Jones says it, it must be.... --------.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-30 01:06 PM | Reply

No links to Alex Jones are allowed here for any reason. Anyone who believes a conspiracy because Jones told them to is staggeringly gullible. He's doing what he does to wind people up and make money.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-30 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--No links to Alex Jones are allowed here for any reason.

Why? If they are so obviously fallacious there are at least a dozen prolific posters around to destroy the argument.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why is because he's trying to make this place less of a haven for fake news and the people who post it.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 02:12 PM | Reply

--Why is because he's trying to make this place less of a haven for fake news and the people who post it.

Who appointed you the arbiter of "fake news"?

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 02:26 PM | Reply

Who appointed you the arbiter of "fake news"?

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT

I hate to interrupt an entertaining temper tantrum like this one, but shouldn't you ask the guy who decided to block the Alex Jones fake news links?

Please proceed.

#7 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-30 02:30 PM | Reply

it isn't about alex. it is about the data dump. he is one of the few to get ahead of the curve.

but yeah, Alex does lose some cred for the cray cray stuff.

#8 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2017-10-30 03:09 PM | Reply

#6 are you actually arguing that Alex Jones isn't fake news?

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-30 03:10 PM | Reply

--#6 are you actually arguing that Alex Jones isn't fake news?

If it's "fake news' than you are free to prove that, rather than censor it. Apparently this is a difficult concept for the new generation of "progressives".

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Our Government's secrecy in this matter, which continues in spite of this pathetic new release, is OUTRAGEOUS.

Has anything NEW been revealed in ridiculously redacted newly released documents? The investigation, which had the potential of looking at people as high up as Hoover was naturally botched. As a result we can never know whether Oswald acted alone or not. But Oswald most certainly shot at the President.

Before this release, we have the confession of E Howard Hunt:

According to Hunt's confession, which was taken by his son, St. John Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:

Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team, and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.

Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an affair with JFK).

David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.

William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.

Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.

Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.

David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible "French gunman," Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.

Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.

#11 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-30 03:46 PM | Reply

I always loved when people would post crazy links to support their argument.
People would demolish the link, author, or site with facts and mockery. It made for real entertainment.

Banning hate sites and the like I understand. Buy crazy sites and kooks are fun.

#12 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-10-30 04:05 PM | Reply

If it's "fake news' than you are free to prove that, rather than censor it. Apparently this is a difficult concept for the new generation of "progressives".

#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN A

No one here, or any where else, is under any obligation to provide a platform for ignorant bull****.

When the government passes a law that shuts him up you will have a point, although I wouldn't call the current regime of troglodytes "progressives" so you will have to wait a little while before your little fantasy comes true.

You're welcome. If you need me to help you brush up on any other topics that most people have a decent grasp of by the time they reach the 5th grade just let me know.

I'm here for you.

If I were you I'd ask for the money I paid for me free, basic education back...

#13 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-30 04:06 PM | Reply

--No one here, or any where else, is under any obligation to provide a platform for ignorant bull****.

What is or isn't "ignorant bullcrap" is in the eye of the beholder. All depends on your ideology.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 04:11 PM | Reply

#13 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

His point went right over your head.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 04:13 PM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY JEFFJ A

His point that a private individual who has decided not to provide a platform for BS is somehow stifling free speech?

I think it's funny that "the defenders of the constitution" don't have even a basic understanding of it...

#16 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-30 04:15 PM | Reply

What is or isn't "ignorant bullcrap" is in the eye of the beholder. All depends on your ideology.

#14 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT

Welp, sparky, start yourself up a web site and you can link to Alex Jones all day long.

Post a link here so I can join and dumb **** you mercilessly and then cry and accuse you of violating my constitutional rights when you censor it.

Done yet?

#17 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-30 04:17 PM | Reply

"What is or isn't "ignorant bullcrap" is in the eye of the beholder. All depends on your ideology."

Does this mean you are correct when you say Ukranians shot down MH17, and I am correct when I say Russians did it?

Facts may or may not be true, depending on your ideology?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 04:19 PM | Reply

--Does this mean you are correct when you say Ukranians shot down MH17,

Why do you keep posting that lie, liar? Do you think you have a point, junior?

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 04:24 PM | Reply

His point that a private individual who has decided not to provide a platform for BS is somehow stifling free speech...

#16 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

That wasn't his point. Well, that isn't how I construed his point.

What he was saying was that people who call themselves "progressive" shouldn't need to have "fake news" banned and should be more than capable of deconstructing BS and should welcome the opportunity to do so. He was calling the reflexive need to ban stuff chickenshat.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

How dare you call it a lie, given your position: "What is or isn't "ignorant bullcrap" is in the eye of the beholder."

That is my point.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 04:27 PM | Reply

"What he was saying was that people who call themselves "progressive" shouldn't need to have "fake news" banned and should be more than capable of deconstructing BS and should welcome the opportunity to do so."

That is a stupid concept from the get-go.

Allowing fake news to be posted turns this place into a fake news aggregation and discussion site.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 04:30 PM | Reply

Allowing fake news to be posted turns this place into a fake news aggregation and discussion site.

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Threads that are linked to dubious sources typically result in about 4 posts.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 04:32 PM | Reply

"...and should welcome the opportunity to do so." - #20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 04:26 PM

Welcome the opportunity to call chickenshat, chickenshat?

That's as much chickenshat as Nulli Quisling's initial chickenshat.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-30 04:32 PM | Reply

What is or isn't "ignorant bullcrap" is in the eye of the beholder. All depends on your ideology.

#14 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

So, no such thing as facts? No wonder you turned Trump Pet.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-30 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Allowing fake news to be posted turns...

And I suppose you want to be the arbiter of what is "fake news", junior.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 04:33 PM | Reply

"Threads that are linked to dubious sources typically result in about 4 posts." - #23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 04:32 PM

It isn't just the threads.

It is the chickenshat comments citing dubious sources that are then passed off as "real" that makes them offensive.

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-30 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And I suppose you want to be the arbiter of what is "fake news", junior."

That sounds a lot like a... job.

No thanks!

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 04:42 PM | Reply

"Threads that are linked to dubious sources typically result in about 4 posts."

So what?

Do you think fake news belongs on a real news discussion site?

Yes or no, or you're a spineless weasel.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 04:46 PM | Reply

If it's "fake news' than you are free to prove that, rather than censor it.

Life's too short to spend all your time correcting shills, morons and charlatans. The Internet is full of them. If you want to waste your life running a web site for that crap just so it can be debunked, no one is stopping you.

Alex Jones and his believers are immune to information. Somebody could post 10 factual corrections to their stories today and they'd be back at it making the same claims tomorrow.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-30 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Life's too short to spend all your time correcting shills, morons and charlatans.

There are plenty of posters able and willing to debunk Alex Jones. What's the problem?

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 05:13 PM | Reply

You know, it came out in Alex Jone's divorce trial that both his parents where CIA agents. Alex Jones actually said that, under oath. And both of his parents made millions off his supplement business.

Like Rush Limbaugh, he also said that he is only an entertainer.

Who does Alex Jones really work for? The last time I watched an Alex Jones show on Youtube - by clicking on it because of the click bait title - he was ranting about how the whole world is run by pedophile Satanists. But he refuses to cover UFO's and fluoridation. Why is that?

#33 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-30 06:06 PM | Reply

"There are plenty of posters able and willing to debunk Alex Jones. What's the problem?
#32 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN"

You. You're the problem.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 06:17 PM | Reply

I don't think he's a problem at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 06:20 PM | Reply

JeffJ, I see you never #30, you spineless weasel.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 06:56 PM | Reply

JeffJ, I see you never #30, you spineless weasel.

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I don't respond to demands and I don't respond to people who call me a spineless weasel.

If you want me to answer your stupid questions, you need to be polite.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 07:11 PM | Reply

JeffJ, please expound on why you think fake news belongs on a news aggregation and discussion site.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 07:32 PM | Reply

I wouldn't say it "belongs". I just don't think it needs to be moderated out. If someone posts a link to a kook website it's an opportunity for everyone else to point and laugh. I guess is you have somebody who is spamming the site with that stuff, yeah, moderate it (that's true of any spam though.

Regardless of what I think, this isn't a 1st Amendment issue and Rcade obviously can run this site however he wishes.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 07:37 PM | Reply

"If someone posts a link to a kook website it's an opportunity for everyone else to point and laugh."

It's also an opportunity for fake news to pass itself off as real news.
Why are you okay with that eventuality?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 07:46 PM | Reply

Should a retail store have a policy of accepting counterfeit currency, so the workers can laugh at the person who tried to spend it?

The things you're saying, they aren't the product of rational thought.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 07:47 PM | Reply

You seem to think lies and truth deserve to stand on equal footing.
I don't know how you end up thinking that, but it's wrong.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 07:48 PM | Reply

If it's "fake news' than you are free to prove that, rather than censor it.

Pointing out that it's from Alex 'gay freakin' frogs' Jones is proving its fake news.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-30 07:52 PM | Reply

#39 Heliums links are left up as a source of entertainment.

But infowars is so demonstrably false all the time there's no point in humoring it.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-30 07:53 PM | Reply

"If it's "fake news' than you are free to prove that, rather than censor it."

But you haven't yet explained: Why not just censor it?
Please tell me what purpose is served when it isn't censored.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 07:54 PM | Reply

#45 "Why not just censor it?"

snoofy, the poster child for George Orwell's 1984.

#46 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-30 08:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--But infowars is so demonstrably false all the time there's no point in humoring it.

If it's so bogus bright guys like you scientists should be able to debunk it without breaking a sweat. So why censor it?

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 08:24 PM | Reply

Seriously, why would you "progressives" even want to censor Alex Jones since he's such an easy punching bag? Looks like an opportunity.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 08:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I saw a hilarious video Jones staged to look like he was going to fight some heckler. He was ranting and acting like a bad ass chasing this obvious plant down. It was pathetic.
Crazy is always funny though.

#49 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-10-30 08:57 PM | Reply

If you goofballs want to post Alec Jones I'm going to post something you sympathize with.

revcom.us

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-30 09:10 PM | Reply

"If someone posts a link to a kook website it's an opportunity for everyone else to point and laugh."
It's also an opportunity for fake news to pass itself off as real news.
Why are you okay with that eventuality?

#40 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If someone posts a link to fake news and it gets censored they are more likely to believe it then if one posts it and a couple of people immediately debunk it as fake news.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-30 09:54 PM | Reply

So, nobody can actually tell me what agenda is servrd when fake news is served up as real news on a news discussion site?

I'll tell you then: Whatever agenda the fake news was created to serve in the first place.

Funny how The Three Birthers are calling it Orwellian when fact is separated from fiction.

Also nicely illustrates the precise reason not to tolerate disinformation.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-30 09:57 PM | Reply

read "JFK and the Unspeakable". by Douglass

Douglass concludes that Kennedy was murdered because he turned to peace. He was going to work with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He refused the CIA US air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He rejected the Joint Chiefs' Operation Northwoods, a plan to conduct false flag attacks on Americans that would be blamed on Castro to justify regime change. He refused to reappoint General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He told US Marine commandant General David Shoup that he was taking the US out of Vietnam. He said after his reelection he was going to "break the CIA into 1,000 pieces." All of this threatened the power and profit of the military/security complex and convinced military/security elements that he was soft on communism and a threat to US national security.

The medical "evidence" that Kennedy was hit from behind was falsified by medical doctors under orders. Navy medical corpsmen who helped the Navy doctors with the autopsy testified that they were dismayed by orders from Admiral Calvin Galloway to ignore entry wounds from the front. One of the corpsmen testified "all at once I understood that my country was not much better than a third world country. From that point on in time, I have had no trust, no respect for the government."

Dr Charles Crenshaw, one of the doctors forced to lie, later broke his silence with a book and was rewarded with a fierce media campaign to discredit him.

Lt. Commander William Pitzer, director of the Audio-Visual Department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, filmed the autopsy. The film clearly showed the entry wound from the front. Pitzer was found shot to death on the floor of the production studio of the National Naval Medical Center. It was ruled a suicide, as always.

J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI knew that Oswald, who Douglass believes was on the payroll of both the CIA and FBI, was sent to Cuba by the CIA in order to establish the story for the patsy role Oswald was unaware was being prepared for him. However, Hoover, along with LBJ, Earl Warren and the members of the Warren Commission understood that it was impossible to tell the American people that their president has been assassinated by the US military and US security agencies. At a dicey time of the Cold War, clearly it would have been reckless to destroy Americans' trust in their own govenment.

#53 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-30 10:26 PM | Reply

#52 Who are the Three Birthers?

#54 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-30 11:31 PM | Reply

The last time I watched an Alex Jones show on Youtube - by clicking on it because of the click bait title - he was ranting about how the whole world is run by pedophile Satanists. But he refuses to cover UFO's and fluoridation. Why is that?

#33 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-30 06:06 PM | Reply

Your kidding right.Fluoridation is a big topic for Alex Jones."sodium chloride is turning the frogs gay" along with the "drugging of America" are some of his most favorite marketing lines for the overpriced water filtration systems he advertises on his show and website.

#55 | Posted by Scotty at 2017-10-31 12:47 AM | Reply

#55 Dude, what does sodium chloride have to do with fluoridation? There are 17 protons in chloride. There are nine in fluoride.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

But I will look up your videos anyway, and review them.

#56 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-31 01:02 AM | Reply

#55 Huh. So Alex Jones knows the Truth about fluoridation. That's pretty odd for a CIA agent. Well, it's a pretty standard tactic by Project Mockingbird agents to muddy the lies with a little Truth now and then....

#57 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-10-31 01:20 AM | Reply

Anyone that thinks Alex Jones isn't nuts is nuts. Take your meds.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-31 06:04 AM | Reply

Bottom line:
Is there ANYONE on this thread who does not know how to get to Alex Jones' site? If so, please use Google. Successful? Then there is no censorship!

This is NOT "your house". The "owner" is under no obligation to cater to everyone's desires or whims. You want to be welcomed as a "guest"? Act like a guest!

#59 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2017-10-31 06:21 AM | Reply

Alex Jones.

I love how the most extreme examples are always given.

How about WND? Daily Caller? Newsmax? Breitbart? (insert similar LW sites) ___________________

None of the sites I mentioned are what I'd describe as "reliable". But, these sites also don't peddle 100% falsities either. A fair amount of it is commentary on the current news cycle. Daily Caller is actually an investigative outlet.

It's when the line gets blurred that I find the urge to censor (I'm talking generally, not targeted at this site) to be problematic. On the left, particularly at the university (but other institutions as well) that urge has become stronger and stronger, approaching the point of totalitarianism.

Political correctness. Speech codes. Hecklers' veto. Increasingly expanded definition of "hate speech" to a point where anything that contradicts LW orthodoxy is defined as "hate speech". Twitter mobs. The laughably named "Antifa".

Throw in the risible notion that hateful speech = violence and is thus appropriate to be met with actual violence.

It's a disturbing trend.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-31 06:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

But infowars is so demonstrably false all the time there's no point in humoring it.

#44 | Posted by jpw

Yes, but so are the sources for most of the UFOologist stories and Bigfoot sightings, but RCADE humors those. RCADE clearly has an internalized checklist for what he will or will not allow on the DR, and one of those checklist items must include content that is politically opposed to his views. If there was (and I'm sure there are) a batcrap-loony left-wing site, it would probably get more consideration. I don't think I've ever seen a 9/11 Truther post get taken down, but maybe it has. It doesn't matter. RCADE owns the site and therefore the content.

#61 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-10-31 07:54 AM | Reply

The funny thing about this thread is that we've made 60 posts about fake news and mainly Alex Jones links not being allowed here. I'm with Hrat on this one, Alex does muddy the water once in a while with some truth. But on the topic of allowing Jones' links on the Retort, I think it should be allowed but I'm not the boss.

I've found that all news outlets to some degree have shaded the truth. Fox being the main one. They love to play the game of swapping (D) for (R) and vice versa associated with politicians names in articles depending on the matter being discussed.

#62 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-10-31 08:04 AM | Reply

I don't think I've ever seen a 9/11 Truther post get taken down, but maybe it has.

They've been taken down many times.

UFOs and bigfoot talk are harmless. The stuff spread by Alex Jones isn't. Sandy Hook and Vegas truthers harass suffering people. The Internet would be a better place if the bogus claims of malicious crackpots were not allowed to spread. The libertarian idea we should "share it all and debunk the false stuff" is not working. There are too many idiots who believe all that nonsense.

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#63 But that's not for us to fix, RCADE. You have every right to do so, but you can't deny that it smacks a bit of censorship. History is rife with "malicious crackpots" whose assertions turned out to be true. People didn't believe there had been an Ice Age, tectonic plates, that birds descended from dinosaurs, or that the Earth orbited the sun. Those are just the scientific theories. A number of "crackpot" conspiracy theories have likewise been proven to be true: the Maddox torpedo engagement false flag operation, FBI infiltration into "subversive groups", Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, and MKUltra were all dismissed by "the responsible media" but turned out to all have been absolutely true. I have to wonder if the Drudge Retort had been around in the 1970's if it would have allowed malicious crackpots to post articles about those very real events?

#65 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-10-31 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here in Utah, the Mormons have created The Zion Curtain, to keep weak eyes from seeing the horrible corruption of unbelievers.

It's basically a series of vice laws that "hide" anything the LDS Church deems objectionable.

The funny thing is, it seems to have the opposite effect on Mormons, who flock to vice in herds.

#66 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-31 11:21 AM | Reply

But that's not for us to fix, RCADE. You have every right to do so, but you can't deny that it smacks a bit of censorship.

It is completely in our power to fix. Sites like this one are privately owned. We publish what we want to publish. People who want to publish something else should start their own damn sites.

What some call "censorship" I call exercising judgment over what takes place in your own space.

Do you choose who to allow in your house, or do you let any rando come in off the street? The same principle applies to web sites.

#67 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People who want to publish something else should start their own damn sites.
#67 | POSTED BY RCADE

You can find me at: usbible.com & rhewitt.com.

Would love to delete your comments the way you delete mine.

#68 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 12:11 PM | Reply

"History is rife with "malicious crackpots" whose assertions turned out to be true."

Which is completely different from a crackpot who says Hillary Clinton literally reeks of sulfur because of how demonic she is.

Just because you can't spot an agent provocateur doesn't change what he is.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67 No, I don't. I'm told that baker and pizza makers have to, though. You've demonstrated a willingness to refuse service to someone based on their political or social statements, but you decry any effort by a different privately owned business to refuse service to someone because of theirs?

#70 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-10-31 12:39 PM | Reply

You can find me at: usbible.com & rhewitt.com.

Congrats on running your own sites.

It's not uncommon for me to get comments deleted on other people's sites. I've been kicked off a few as well. It happens. Sometimes the moderation pisses me off so much I quit. Other times I stick around.

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 12:39 PM | Reply

"You've demonstrated a willingness to refuse service to someone based on their political or social statements"

Service?
No, he deletes their offensive post.
But they're allowed to post stuff that isn't obvious propaganda.

You're trying to play gotcha, but it's not going to work.

Resign yourself to posting your fake news on Facebook, okay?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 12:53 PM | Reply

It's not uncommon for me to get comments deleted on other people's sites. I've been kicked off a few as well. It happens. Sometimes the moderation pisses me off so much I quit. Other times I stick around.
#71 | POSTED BY RCADE

You are not viscious. I can't imagine myself deleting your comments. On the other side I have complete freedom to respond.

#74 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 01:22 PM | Reply

I don't think I've ever seen a 9/11 Truther post get taken down, but maybe it has.
They've been taken down many times.

I wrote an article on that.

#76 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 01:28 PM | Reply

If it's so bogus bright guys like you scientists should be able to debunk it without breaking a sweat. So why censor it?

#47 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Because there is no responsibility to give equal weight to all information or opinions.

Jones's track record is non-existent as to his ability to say something insightful, let alone truthful. As such his rants aren't worth the time of day to address.

I'm personally glad it's filtered.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-31 11:50 PM | Reply

If someone posts a link to fake news and it gets censored they are more likely to believe it then if one posts it and a couple of people immediately debunk it as fake news.

#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No offense, but you're an idiot if this statement was made with any level of seriousness to it.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-31 11:51 PM | Reply

I've found that all news outlets to some degree have shaded the truth.

#62 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

If Alex Jones was merely 'shading the truth' you'd have a point. (you get some edgy points though for you "but they're all like, the same, man" argument).

But he goes far beyond that and more often than not makes crap up just to sell his moron followers some overpriced crap product to "solve" the problem he just created to sell the product.

www.youtube.com

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-31 11:57 PM | Reply

No offense, but you're an idiot if this statement was made with any level of seriousness to it.

#78 | POSTED BY JPW

It was a serious statement. Why is it idiotic?

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-01 03:55 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort