capybaraStorm

No I don't find it credible. I do find it credible that Jones would latch on to it out of reasons devoid of personal malice, and that even if he thought it wasn't true he would still be incapable of anything other than obsessing the anti-viewpoint presented by the government, if you know anything about the guy.

It is important people like Jones exist, even if what they spout almost all the time is vicious lies that nutjobs cite to harass people. Someone needs to bear the banner of the conspiracy angle, and drum up whatever evidence they can find.

p80 is defunct and sold off [0].

A 3d printed frame with fiber filament will last a long time. That is the future, conventional injected molded polymer 80% companies for handgun frames have been sued into oblivion.

[0] "This week in guns" by Fudd Busters, youtube, 8/20/2024.

I don't at all agree with what Jones said. I find it disgusting. But you should take a look at some of the videos of the parents. There is one, where the dad is laughing and smiling and suddenly goes up to the microphone and switches to sad dad mode.

Now being a thinking, somewhat empathetic human being I understand people handle grief differently. I don't think he was an actor. But I understand why he might be viewed that way. It seems insane to me that somehow it was lawfared that Jone's real interpretation that it looked like acting to him (it looked like acting to me, but I know it wasn't and those kids really were killed) and somehow it is his fault that he is liable for harrassment others do under the flag of agreeing with Jones' take. That has an incredibly chilling effect on speech.

Jones did lose the civil case but it was a weird one, in the right venue, at the right time, in the worst possible light, and with pretty bad representation both of himself and spotty counsel. It's not something to look at to rest your hat on for how these things will continue to be interpreted in the future.

The parents won a defamation suit. Nothing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not even the standard by which civil claims are made.

They had some very clever lawyers, that law-fared defamation against the dead into being defamation against the living because by defaming the dead you are lying about the living's representation about the dead. These lawyers are yanking their chain around, pursuing political enemies, for whatever scraps of Infowars are left without their star loon (and its not clear the parents are going to even get much of these scraps because they were then conned into accepting future revenue from this husk). Meanwhile they are dragging along their agony because the guy who killed their kids was a broke nobody, so they yanked along the parents for years going after the nearest unlikeable pockets as sort of a surrogate villain.

You are making a criminal accusation that beyond a reasonable doubt armed men are making threats, based on a civil suit. Perhaps you are the libeler.

Dating is one of those things I was never good at unless I gave up.

Maybe it's just me, but my luck was women only wanted me when I was too busy or having too much fun to go looking. I have a terrible poker face and if it seems like I'm looking for love then for whatever reason in my individual case it seems to be taken as a sign I don't deserve it. Of course if someone was offering, I might free up the time.

Not sure how common this is, but I've heard same from others.

Your cam model acquaintance moved to Dubai, why do you think that is? It is a place full of rich people who want escorts and the price is bidding towards infinity because they're operating on a very toned down version of Shariah law that is in place to provide a tenuous balance between not killing the golden goose of Dubai and maintaining effectively an Islamic Monarchy.

She is chasing the grey line of risk, and Dubai is the sweet spot right now of risk:reward. When she is found out, the best she can hope for is a revocation of her visa and a swift kick out of the country.

A baby once crawled out in front of me from behind a wheel in a parked car on a narrow street.

The parents were not watching the baby at all, but they scowled at me when I swerved as they realized what I was swerving away from.

The parents shouldn't have let a baby crawl in the street but it's not clear to me why I would be at fault in such situation if say a kid was riding his bike on the other side and I had nowhere to swerve (honestly it is a miracle my peripheral vision even captured a baby peaking from behind tire and recognized it). I personally know of at least one instance when I was a kid and a driver hit a (jaywalking) kid on the highway and absolutely nothing happened to anyone, and we all felt that was perfectly just.

It's not an exclusive relationship. It is a highly transactional ephemeral one.

The basic reproductive qualities of females favor LTR since it takes 9 months at the very least to pop out a kid, during which time mating with other males provides no additional children for them.

It will be an interesting world if these short transactional relationships are basically available anywhere like chips out of a vending machine. I suspect most of the reason for laws against prostitution are a mixture of protectionism for prostitution rings (they need the illegality / high risk to lock in heavy profits) and disproportionately appeals towards the female reproductive strategy that is potentially at a disadvantage with guiltless "normal" sanctioned prostitution on the table at every computer and street corner.

They are occupying a brief period where sex work is white market enough to not be quite as dangerous or "disgraceful" as the old days, but not accepted or legal enough to be clobbered in competition by everyone else.

Feminism and their desire to legitimize sex work will be the death knell to high wages for sex workers, and eventually drive the sex workers asking for it to other occupations that suit their risk and profit appetite. ~50% of the population has a pussy and if it's seen as completely benign, legal, and normal to sell yourself the supply will go up 10 fold to the point it becomes a job every stay at home mom vies for while applying to be a transcriptionist or whatever else.

I would probably go for a sob story about why a right-wing conspiracy theorist with a talk show caused me $1B in damages by saying nonsense 99.9% of the US and none of my employers believe. While simultaneously using the notoriety created by said loon to beg for money for cancer treatment.

I always enjoy hearing the dichotomy from various sects of society that simultaneously the immigrants are such drop in the bucket they can be educated for a dozen years at costs that would not be "remotely significant" in measurable change of learning in others, yet simultaneously we're lead to believe deporting them is a monumentally expensive effort that would break our backs.

Whether their stories about what they dealt with are true or not, they have incredible incentive to make sure they present such dealings as worth a billion dollars. You can't put a price on human life, but if you could surely those children are worth a billion and more, so they just took the money from Jones (the nearest lying person they hated) instead of the broke murderer.

Bernhard Gaetz famously said (accurately) the victims family never got a dime from him after the lawsuit. It's quite likely similar will be said from Jones, although they can take the scraps of Infowars which is worth very little without their star loon. They are grasping at straws while being yanked around by attorneys, while the brutal truth is the real enemy that murdered their children is in a grave and they will never be able to truly dish out justice to him while they flail around looking for it elsewhere.

If you think prosecutions are shams for the elite, wait until you see what they look like against the plebs.

That is damn close. This one is quite interesting in and of its twice as long and concerns someone who doesn't have the kind of immunity presidents have recently been under scrutiny for possibly having.

Another interesting thing I found about Hunter's pardon was that the president openly said isolated prosecutions of lying on the 4473 are unfairly targeted, but then baffling only pardoned his son for it.

I promise this is an honest question: has ANY president since the civil war reconciliation blanket pardoned someone for an entire decade for all known and unknown federal crimes?

The interesting precedent here is if you lie about the dead (who until this fiction, had no protection from defamation), you have defamed any living person who says the opposite and factual information about them.

But we all know the precedent set in this case was a lie. Otherwise anyone who said the kids were really killed would have standing, since Jones thought they were "crisis actors."

We all know this was really used as a back door way to pay the parents for dishonoring the dead. Basically "meh we can't extract justice from the murderer, best we can do is get a lot of money from someone with mutual hate."

Edit: s/precedent/historical precedent/ . I did not mean to imply as assumed below this precedent is legally binding.

The argument the lawsuit wasn't about defending the honor of the dead kids while going after the nearest deep pockets is pretty questionable. I don't condone what Jones said but it seems pretty clear to me the reason the parents wanted the money was because they felt Jones was selling a false story about their children.

This is an interesting strategy you've taken. You're basically setting a trap where you want me to specifically go after Alaskans or Arabians to prove my point.

I'm not taking the racist bait.

I have no reason to think it causes any more or less issues in Alaskans/Arabians a anyone else. The fact that Arabians or Alaskans did or didn't cover in public doesn't sway the outcome one way or another. There are all sorts of cultural factors that compound outcomes, and both mainstream America and Arabs have some that succeed with in spite of, others they succeed because of.

It caused a shitstorm for our family. The prices of houses went 3x in our area due to covid era ~0% interest rate policies, leading me to work so hard to try and keep up I had health issues and was working ~80 hours a week just to be able to buy 1/2 the house I could have before the great leaders printed their way through their policies. I finally managed to secure housing but only after working twice as hard and physically building the house myself one block at a time with completely undeveloped land (this was the only real estate not exploded into oblivion by mortgage bidders), something last done by common people circa the great depression.

The cure may have been worse than the disease. They basically carpet bombed anyone who started a family right at the time the pandemic broke out.

For much of my child's formative infant year, people were screaming bloody murder if we wanted our infant to develop a sense of facial expression in strangers and in public. They were also hell bent on banning much of the social events that people might bring infants to that may help develop early socialization. You do not get a more neuroplastic year than the first one.

There was a lot of stuff going on where one has to wonder how much we disproportionately sacrificed the children for disproportionately the elderly. It still deeply bothers me what effect this could have had on my child.

They closed them then re-opened them in time for one of the biggest waves of asylum/undocumented immigration in recent history, part of which incentivized bringing children (who often need ESL and cultural integration assistance) who then are entitled to attend public schools whether or not the school has been allocated the resources for such influx. Such re-allocation of finite resources to include so many students with extra integrative needs would track well with across the board drops regardless of race.

I can't imagine what it is like to be teaching 29 or 30 students and one pops in after crossing the Darien Gap, possibly witnessing people being raped and swept away by the jungle, then having to go on and go straight into learning arithmetic -- and then realize this is happening at mass scale. "What is 5 - 1?" The number of us remaining after we crossed the last stream.

Visa based immigration pathways, especially the non family linked ones, tend to display this effect less prominently since professional visas bring in people who on average paying higher property and other taxes and have had the resources to prepare their children for school in the US.

Death sentence is often seen as better because you might get an individual cell, and copious pro bono appeals for your case.

Yes of course. All of this seems to me totally psychotic and not at all a dystopia I want to live in. Which is why I lived in an area with almost no government, very weak police services, little to no code/zone enforcement, weak environmental controls, etc etc.

I pointed it out largely because I find the drug laws to be particularly strange.

The government has had a very hard time classifying what type of crime drug dealing is. First they said it was a tax crime (well before that, an import or tariff crime). Then the 10th amendment was basically gutted, and it became a crime where all the facts could be identical to a pharmacy dispensing a script, but sans paying for a DEA license.

It is definitely a very strange one. The classical liberalism argument is that the most prominent aspect remains essentially a financial crime of failure to pay the licensing tax.

The contrarian view is that drug dealing is a financial crime of not paying for the credentials of a DEA license, or that fraudulently denying medical claims is a crime of criminal negligence resulting in bodily harm.

As for where I started, my initial comments involved both financial crimes and drug dealing. Most but not all probably consider insurance fraud as a financial crime but one that some can only atone through vigilantism. The line to me on all accounts looks blurry.

The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."

One of the more sympathetic views towards the murderer is that there was no legal avenue to pursue the CEO for mass fraud under which the plaintiffs would get a fair shake. Vigilantism is more welcome by the public when it appears to be the only recourse.

My point is he (CEO) is viewed by many as most culpable for fraudulently denied claims at UHC -- and there are crimes, even non-financial ones like drug dealing, that tightly couple level of organization and sales of a product to differences in penalty for even a singe death. That is, this line of thinking is embedded in the USC.

I am the CEO of insurance company Inc (ICI).

Under me is 1000 salesman. Every salesman knows and understands I am selling a plan that will deny or delay for some covered minor ailments that once in a million set off a chain inducing death.

As CEO of ICI I collect $300M in premiums and from that take $3M.

After selling a million policies, a patient dies as a side effect of intentional strategy of denying authorization to pay for care. That plan is traced to going through a single salesman, who collected $5 from that sale and $50k in all his sales. From that same sales, I, the CEO only collected $1. That is, the dollar profit for the death is greater for the salesman than the CEO.

The salesman and I are both direct paths in the death, in fact the salesman more than me, hell the salesman even made more of a commission than I did. The public will likely hold me more in contempt.

Even the smallest understanding of utility of money will prove your assertion wildly inaccurate.

If you sell a few hits of fentanyl you aren't going to meet the statutory definition of a criminal enterprise and therefore will not be eligible for federal death penalty even though fentanyl induces death.

If you sell $100M of fentanyl you can get the death sentence, since fentanyl is an element in inducing death at basically any sufficiently large quantity of a criminal enterprise.

It is not exactly the same, but it has a lot of parallels to the argument I see here. If you are an insurance salesman selling contracts you know will not be honored and such denied claims will be an element of death, many will not see it as serious as being the criminal enterprise leader who orchestrated it. Even in such case that the policy can be attributed to a single salesman, the executive is likely to be held more culpable just as the US code holds the criminal enterprise executive to the death penalty whereas it may not hold the low level guy who sold the fentanyl.