Comments by "Chaos Corner" (@chaos.corner) on "Alex Jones Is Now Personally Bankrupt" video.

@craigtucker1290 When the government inserts itself, such as when the courts get involved, that's no longer between individuals. Personally, I think the case for slander was fairly strong but the award made was clearly completely political. It's not to make the plaintiff whole or to punish Jones for past actions but to ensure that Jones is precluded from his ability to exercise his rights going forward. Now, I'm no Jones fan but when I see raw power being exercised by the government like that, it makes me nervous.
2
@craigtucker1290 The government is quite plainly there. There is the plaintiff, there is the defendant then there is a judge and a courtroom and a whole enforcement system with officials and men with guns. They are inserted at the request of the plaintiff, sure enough but they're most definitely there. I know the difference between civil and criminal cases but both stem from laws created by the government and are enforced by the same. You might have a point for contract cases where an agreement was made between the parties but that is not the case here.
2
I can save you some time: "Orange man bad".
1
@DorianGrayClampitt Think of this; You're rationalizing away "your guy"'s misdeeds just like every tribalist dufus before you.
1
@DorianGrayClampitt Does anybody support the main party in power in Canada? Your analogy falls apart as the situations are quite different. To continue it further, Biden turned out to have crates of soda stashed here and there where all sorts of people, including foreign powers, who shouldn't, could have access to them while Trump had his stashed in a secure location. Further, Trump had a position at the store which gave him considerably more powers over access to those sodas than did Biden who was merely a stock boy at the time. Yes, bad analogy. That's my point. In addition, we're still waiting to hear what the substantiative details of what these documents were about. Possibly we may never hear what Biden had (though if they are lining this up to remove him from office, we may) where Trump has faced non-stop harassment for 6+ years now where the "walls are closing in" but yet nothing meaningful has materialized. Anyway, my bigger point is this "Legal Eagle" chap quite plainly swings obviously hard to the left and any opinion he gives should be viewed as the echo-chamber fodder it is.
1
@FoodNerds To say the least. Braveheart is full-on fiction with some names of real people and places sprinkled in.
1
@craigtucker1290 The courts are impartial arbiters. Right. Have you been paying attention? Since you seem to have completely missed (or deliberately misrepresented) my statement about my position on Jones, I guess you haven't. But regardless of that, the government is there and pretending it is not is a fiction. Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
1
@craigtucker1290 Where's your earlier comment, Craig? Did you delete it because you admitted the government was present and now you want to say it's something a 'sovcit' would say? Look, if you can't keep your story straight and can't be intellectually honest enough to not misrepresent what I'm actually saying (all my comments are still there. Feel free to reread them), there's really no point continuing, especially in something as awkward to use as YouTube comments. I've said what I said and I stand by it. Bring something to the table or find someone else to annoy. And reality's treating me just dandy, just so you know.
1
@craigtucker1290 Found it. It could still be referenced through my notifications. You wrote "The courts are part of the government, but they are only there[...]". So they are there. That was my contention. The partiality, the agenda, the bias of the judge, whispers, insinuations and backroom support behind the scenes, that can all be argued but the government is there. It is not just the plaintiff and the defendant.
1
@craigtucker1290 We've already established you don't have a firm grasp of what I'm "purporting". I've given you many opportunities to rectify that but by refusing to do so, you have shown your colors as I suspected you would. Have a nice night, Craig.
1
@craigtucker1290 Dude, I've already gone around in circles with you more than I typically allow. I suggest you transfer your imaginary claims to an imaginary friend and have an imaginary argument with him (or her if you'd prefer).
1
@craigtucker1290 Yeah, as well as imagining arguments I supposedly made, you're now imagining your own. Take care Craig, I hope they get your dosage correct next time.
1
@craigtucker1290 I stopped arguing when you agreed with my point (where I have already quoted you once). That was a long time ago. Hey Craig, pop quiz: Name the three branches of government.
1
@craigtucker1290 The judge is not a legal representative but is an agent of the government as are all the other sundry government employees present. Look, my issue was you said the government was not present. That is an attempt to make an end-run around any other arguments that could be made about bias and other malfeasance. That's disingenuous. The government is there (as your quote attests) and that's enough to open the door to further questions. I'm not interested in those arguments here, I just dislike dishonest arguing. But go ahead, make some more stuff up. You haven't called me a flat-earther yet.
1
@craigtucker1290 Executive, Legislature, Judicial. I said the government is there, you've said the government is there. The government is there. You know I'm just doing this for fun now, right? Try this for a mental (if you're capable) exercise. Take the government completely out of the equation and tell me what happens. No court, no judge no enforcement... You're trying to play the typical language games if you're saying the government is only involved if there's a prosecutor present. The courts are a constitutionally defined part of the government. If this was going through independent arbitration, you'd have a point but that looks very different.
1