ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags defamation cases , lawsuits , media criticism , Nathan Phillips , Nick Sandmann , protest incidents , racism charges

Reply
Old 19th February 2019, 07:59 PM   #1921
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Regale us with your legal analysis of just why that is improper.

Thanks in advance
It's amateurish and like the whole suit is not designed to win a case but to create a narrative. They offer nothing more substantial as regards the Post than that the Post published some stuff that was making the rounds. They cite the original article being picked up off the responses to the hugely edited internet viral video, but offer nothing to show that it was anything other than reporting. They offer evidence that the Post quoted Nathan a number of times. The original articles that they are referring to had enough wiggle-room disclaimers that the onus is now on the Thirsty Ambulance Chasing Lawyer to prove his repeated accusation the the WaPo did this to further their agenda.

He's killed his own case.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 08:24 PM   #1922
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
It's amateurish and like the whole suit is not designed to win a case but to create a narrative. They offer nothing more substantial as regards the Post than that the Post published some stuff that was making the rounds. They cite the original article being picked up off the responses to the hugely edited internet viral video, but offer nothing to show that it was anything other than reporting. They offer evidence that the Post quoted Nathan a number of times. The original articles that they are referring to had enough wiggle-room disclaimers that the onus is now on the Thirsty Ambulance Chasing Lawyer to prove his repeated accusation the the WaPo did this to further their agenda.

He's killed his own case.
Interesting, you have not in anyway shown that it was improper to link to the video.

Instead you have ignored the video (do not blame you as your assertion was nonsense) and have made conclusionary arguments that they don’t cite sufficient evidence (you don’t have to cite evidence in a complaint) and that the “onus” is “now” on the plaintiff to prove his claim.

Golly, you are saying that the plaintiff has the burden of proving their claim? Zoinks, that lawyer is really in for an eye opener that he has to prove his claim on which he has the burden of proof. Shocking
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:34 PM   #1923
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Interesting, you have not in anyway shown that it was improper to link to the video.

Instead you have ignored the video (do not blame you as your assertion was nonsense) and have made conclusionary arguments that they don’t cite sufficient evidence (you don’t have to cite evidence in a complaint) and that the “onus” is “now” on the plaintiff to prove his claim.

Golly, you are saying that the plaintiff has the burden of proving their claim? Zoinks, that lawyer is really in for an eye opener that he has to prove his claim on which he has the burden of proof. Shocking
Yeah, well here's some of what they've signed up to prove:

Originally Posted by CNN.com
The lawsuit claims that the Post "wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C."

The complaint also accuses the Post of engaging in a "modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child."
Good luck proving that reporting on a viral video even constitutes defamation, much less all that malicious intent.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 10:36 PM   #1924
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Interesting, you have not in anyway shown that it was improper to link to the video.
What is this "improper" of which you speak? It's certainly not illegal, but that's not my claim, which is that it's stupid and amateurish.

Quote:
Instead you have ignored the video (do not blame you as your assertion was nonsense) and have made conclusionary arguments that they don’t cite sufficient evidence (you don’t have to cite evidence in a complaint) and that the “onus” is “now” on the plaintiff to prove his claim.
I didn't ignore the video. We've all seen it. Or, at least those of us who are informed and have read the thread. And why would you need the fifteen minute recap for the slow-witted when you have a several-hundred-point lawsuit in front of you?

As to their weak "evidence".... Are you aware that in order to get a tort case past the first reading the plaintiff does actually have to show sufficient material to prevent the judge from tossing it out?

I didn't mention that it was insufficient evidence to convict (find damages, actually, as it's a tort case not criminal). I don't think there's enough material in it pertaining to the Washington Post. The complaint is totally based on conjecture. I mentioned that their complaint, based on six published articles is making assumptions as to motive and agenda and they state so several times. In short, they're showing no actual basis for a claim. It's a case designed to create a narrative. They don't have to establish the kid's bona fides in a case. Why do they have several hundred posts on his actions and interactions with Nathan.

The suit is whether the Post went about their smarmy business with the intention of trashing people to support their agenda. It's going to be a very difficult case to prove. "Discovery" is not going to be their friend if they don't find emails from the editor saying "I don't care what really happened. You've got MAGA hats on white kids.... make it happen!"

Quote:
Golly, you are saying that the plaintiff has the burden of proving their claim? Zoinks, that lawyer is really in for an eye opener that he has to prove his claim on which he has the burden of proof. Shocking
As mentioned, they have to show enough that it makes it viable for the court to hear the case and empanel a jury. I feel that what they've shown is insufficient. Several hundred points of unrelated bluster are completely irrelevant to the proceedings.

It's a ridiculous suit and it's self-defeating for them to claim "agenda" as part of the reasoning. It'll play well in Build That Wall Lock Her Up country but it'll be laughed out of court. They can't hear the case in Covington, either. It'll be moved or overturned on appeal if they don't.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 07:17 AM   #1925
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
What is this "improper" of which you speak? It's certainly not illegal, but that's not my claim, which is that it's stupid and amateurish.

I didn't ignore the video. We've all seen it. Or, at least those of us who are informed and have read the thread. And why would you need the fifteen minute recap for the slow-witted when you have a several-hundred-point lawsuit in front of you?

As to their weak "evidence".... Are you aware that in order to get a tort case past the first reading the plaintiff does actually have to show sufficient material to prevent the judge from tossing it out?
"it's stupid and amateurish." I guess we will take your word for the well produced video which demolishes the race grifter is "stupid and amateurish."

"Are you aware that in order to get a tort case past the first reading the plaintiff does actually have to show sufficient material to prevent the judge from tossing it out?" The "first reading"? What is this Bleak House?

Pursuant to FRCP 8, federal court is a notice pleading jurisdiction. As such, kindly please stop contaminating this thread with things you do not understand
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:00 AM   #1926
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,701
Did the WaPo defame that little terd? And -- and BULLY his prep school butt? Well good for them! Big, bad, and Protestant, that's how I like my newspapers!
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:41 AM   #1927
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
y'all can tell who have been bluepilled, they repeatedly attack this 16 year old kid for standing his ground when being swarmed by race grifters.

He should have meekly submitted to Uncle Refrigerator Repairman.

I look forward to the suit against the stolen valor con artists and his racist Indian pals.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:44 AM   #1928
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"it's stupid and amateurish." I guess we will take your word for the well produced video which demolishes the race grifter is "stupid and amateurish."

"Are you aware that in order to get a tort case past the first reading the plaintiff does actually have to show sufficient material to prevent the judge from tossing it out?" The "first reading"? What is this Bleak House?

Pursuant to FRCP 8, federal court is a notice pleading jurisdiction. As such, kindly please stop contaminating this thread with things you do not understand
It is stupid and amateurish as a legal tactic. That's why I made the parallel to Orly Taitz. It's a position paper masquerading as a lawsuit. Including any video, with the subsequent expectation that a court should go to Youtube is stupid and amateurish.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:45 AM   #1929
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,183
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
y'all can tell who have been bluepilled
Given your steadfast refusal to define what that means, I doubt it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:58 AM   #1930
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
It is stupid and amateurish as a legal tactic. That's why I made the parallel to Orly Taitz. It's a position paper masquerading as a lawsuit. Including any video, with the subsequent expectation that a court should go to Youtube is stupid and amateurish.
The fact that you are declaring it "stupid and amateurish" is not really a legal concept now is it, particularly given that mishmash of an argument you made about "first reading" which the less said about that the better, huh?

since the federal courts have gone to electronic filings, it is not at all unusual to post links in legal documents, particularly in high profile cases. Say have you seen california's suit against trump on the emergency shutdown?

It contains dozens of links to the internet and, hold your hat, it's a position paper masquerading as a lawsuit!

Your arguments are grossly uninformed and silly.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:07 AM   #1931
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The fact that you are declaring it "stupid and amateurish" is not really a legal concept now is it, particularly given that mishmash of an argument you made about "first reading" which the less said about that the better, huh?

since the federal courts have gone to electronic filings, it is not at all unusual to post links in legal documents, particularly in high profile cases. Say have you seen california's suit against trump on the emergency shutdown?

It contains dozens of links to the internet and, hold your hat, it's a position paper masquerading as a lawsuit!

Your arguments are grossly uninformed and silly.
That's some sharp legal mind you got there, The Big Dog. You actually figured out that I was stating an opinion,... my opinion. Damn! Can't get anything past you, can we.

The CA suit has dozens of links to Youtube videos produced by their legal staff? I'll have to go take a look in the morning because if they do, then they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:15 AM   #1932
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
That's some sharp legal mind you got there, The Big Dog. You actually figured out that I was stating an opinion,... my opinion. Damn! Can't get anything past you, can we.

The CA suit has dozens of links to Youtube videos produced by their legal staff? I'll have to go take a look in the morning because if they do, then they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Yes it is a sharp legal mind, thanks. You "opinion" was incorrect as a matter of law

I did not say they contained links to YouTube, they contain links to twitter, and various other places on the internet, but it seems that you don't have a problem with that, you have a problem with "youTube" only for some damn reason?

YouTube, one of the places on the internet where this whole race grift got its legs under it before it was crushed by reasonable people who took the time to investigate the whole story before damning these kids who did nothing wrong?

The video is very well done and contains actual video evidence that demonstrates that the whole story spewed by Nathan was a lie.

Of course FMW declares it "STUPID" which might win an argument on the third ground playground, but not here.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:16 PM   #1933
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Sad Hate Web Site soils themselves

One of the the go to places on the internet for actual active race grifting and spittle soaked white hatred is The Root.

Today they have managed to plumb a new depth by heroically embarrassing themselves again trying to spew their race hate against the teens from Cov Catholic.

Lets take a gander

Quote:
Covington Catholic MAGA Hat Teen Who Helped Terrorize Native American Activist Is Suing the Washington Post
Yes they actually used the word terrorize! Yes, the kids terrorized the native Activist when he deliberately confronted them his merry band of racists who told the kids to go back to Europe.

"impeding the path of a Native American activist." Seriously, hate web site The Root wrote that next level nonsense... Did they see the whole video, or the gloating afterwards by the stolen valor grifter, of course not because: WHITE

They have been working hard promoting any and every race card dealing dummy since The Root was still born.

No link because it disgusts me I already gave that hate site a click. Google it yourself if you care to see racists being racists.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:20 PM   #1934
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,640
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The CA suit has dozens of links to Youtube videos produced by their legal staff? I'll have to go take a look in the morning because if they do, then they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Why?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 04:12 PM   #1935
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
WaPo still has time to retract

"In a subsequent statement to Law&Crime, Wood said the timing of the complaint was not a mistake, but intentional, so WaPo would know he means business. If they issue a retraction, then he’ll address any changes he might need to make to the complaint." Link
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:25 PM   #1936
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The fact that you are declaring it "stupid and amateurish" is not really a legal concept now is it, particularly given that mishmash of an argument you made about "first reading" which the less said about that the better, huh?

since the federal courts have gone to electronic filings, it is not at all unusual to post links in legal documents, particularly in high profile cases. Say have you seen california's suit against trump on the emergency shutdown?

It contains dozens of links to the internet and, hold your hat, it's a position paper masquerading as a lawsuit!

Your arguments are grossly uninformed and silly.
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
That's some sharp legal mind you got there, The Big Dog. You actually figured out that I was stating an opinion,... my opinion. Damn! Can't get anything past you, can we.

The CA suit has dozens of links to Youtube videos produced by their legal staff? I'll have to go take a look in the morning because if they do, then they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why?
Are you not following the conversation, Zig? Would you expect the State Attorney Generals to go out and produce a Youtube video and use it in a legal filing?

Please also note TBD's sleight of hand. I am referring to a propaganda piece produced by his defence and posted on Youtube and offered as "evidence".

The CA lawsuit has dozens of links to the internet.... All at "tinyurl" and all links to reports or news articles. The CA suit does not have dozens of links to Youtube videos. None of their links are to self-produced videos or even reports written by the AGs filing suit. They are also in the footnotes and rather than submit fifty pages of evidence simply a convenient way to get to the documents being referred to.

"The Washington Post is a big meanie and here's our in-house Youtube that proves it".

Really?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:37 PM   #1937
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Are you not following the conversation, Zig? Would you expect the State Attorney Generals to go out and produce a Youtube video and use it in a legal filing?

Please also note TBD's sleight of hand. I am referring to a propaganda piece produced by his defence and posted on Youtube and offered as "evidence".

The CA lawsuit has dozens of links to the internet.... All at "tinyurl" and all links to reports or news articles. The CA suit does not have dozens of links to Youtube videos. None of their links are to self-produced videos or even reports written by the AGs filing suit. They are also in the footnotes and rather than submit fifty pages of evidence simply a convenient way to get to the documents being referred to.

"The Washington Post is a big meanie and here's our in-house Youtube that proves it".

Really?
lie.

It appears that the youtube link is what has our intrepid legal beagle tied up in knots.

Not the actual legal analysis expertly provided by me, or defending the insipid claims about "first reading," nor the prevalence of internet links, nor even the fact that a case that at its heart has videos at issue has a link to excerpts of the video, no it appears that the problem is that a YouTube link is:

Stupid.

Cannot argue with that quality of argument folks!

Not even on a first reading!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:39 PM   #1938
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Here is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkp...ature=youtu.be

remember, leftists have declared that it is STUPID!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:52 PM   #1939
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Here is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkp...ature=youtu.be

remember, leftists have declared that it is STUPID!
Can you go a single post without making up a lie?

1. Leftists haven't declared anything. I have declared it so.
2. And I have not declared the video to be stupid. I have declared it to be a propaganda piece, produced by the attorneys, and that INCLUDING IT IN A COURT FILING is stupid.

That is clearly an opinion. Yours differs. Noted. Stop straw-manning every argument.

Having viewed both the video and the filing, would you locate for us anything in the video that is not included in the suit? It's a recap and it's there for propaganda purposes. "Here, we're all lawyers and stuff but being unable to make our case, we've hired this PR company to produce a video of what you're stupid to understand, your honor."
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:06 PM   #1940
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Can you go a single post without making up a lie?

1. Leftists haven't declared anything. I have declared it so.
2. And I have not declared the video to be stupid. I have declared it to be a propaganda piece, produced by the attorneys, and that INCLUDING IT IN A COURT FILING is stupid.

That is clearly an opinion. Yours differs. Noted. Stop straw-manning every argument.

Having viewed both the video and the filing, would you locate for us anything in the video that is not included in the suit? It's a recap and it's there for propaganda purposes. "Here, we're all lawyers and stuff but being unable to make our case, we've hired this PR company to produce a video of what you're stupid to understand, your honor."
We’ve gone from the lawyers have killed their case, to the video is stupid because it is a recap or something... and including actual video about Reporting that is based on the video mean the judge is stupid or something.

Just enjoying the twisting in the wind where our intrepid poster who complained about first reading is criticizing the actual lawyers who drafted the complaint because it is

Stupid.

Dreamy!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:28 PM   #1941
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We’ve gone from the lawyers have killed their case, to the video is stupid because it is a recap or something... and including actual video about Reporting that is based on the video mean the judge is stupid or something.

Just enjoying the twisting in the wind where our intrepid poster who complained about first reading is criticizing the actual lawyers who drafted the complaint because it is

Stupid.

Dreamy!
So, you're obviously correct again.
(Rule of So)

We haven't gone from anything to anything. My original contentions still stand. I think the flimsiness of the suit, in total, kills their case. I think the hundreds of points having nothing to do with the Washington Post kills their case. I think their inflammatory editorializing about the Post being part of a Fake News conspiracy plot kills their case.

AND I think their suit linking to a "Thirsty Ambulance Chaser Production" on Youtube is stupid and amateurish. I'll ask you again... what is in that video that is not in the hundreds of other points in the filing?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 11:59 PM   #1942
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
So, you're obviously correct again.
(Rule of So)

We haven't gone from anything to anything. My original contentions still stand. I think the flimsiness of the suit, in total, kills their case. I think the hundreds of points having nothing to do with the Washington Post kills their case. I think their inflammatory editorializing about the Post being part of a Fake News conspiracy plot kills their case.

AND I think their suit linking to a "Thirsty Ambulance Chaser Production" on Youtube is stupid and amateurish. I'll ask you again... what is in that video that is not in the hundreds of other points in the filing?
Just out of curiosity, do you think it will be difficult to prove that the Washington Post has a political bias regarding Donald Trump and his supporters?

I tend to think that part will be easy to prove based on well documented pieces the WaPo has run that are consistently negative about Trump.

The Washington Post is in a bit of hot water because they printed things about the Covington student that were untrue. An investigation cleared the student of any wrongdoing and confirmed the media attack was based on lies. At the least, when someone prints something about you that's untrue, that person is liable and you are entitled to damages.

Bezos better be stocking up on KY Jelly over this KY kid because a jury is gonna love this case.

Chris B.
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 04:11 AM   #1943
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Just out of curiosity, do you think it will be difficult to prove that the Washington Post has a political bias regarding Donald Trump and his supporters?

I tend to think that part will be easy to prove based on well documented pieces the WaPo has run that are consistently negative about Trump.

The Washington Post is in a bit of hot water because they printed things about the Covington student that were untrue. An investigation cleared the student of any wrongdoing and confirmed the media attack was based on lies. At the least, when someone prints something about you that's untrue, that person is liable and you are entitled to damages.

Bezos better be stocking up on KY Jelly over this KY kid because a jury is gonna love this case.

Chris B.
All news outlets have some form of bias. The issue is to prove that said bias was their guiding force in this coverage and that's not as easy as you think it is. Have you read the exhibits? They actually claim that in the suit. This isn't a libel/slander trial - all they have to do is prove "damages" and that the accused is responsible for those damages - but the onus of proof is still similar (not same, similar). They will have to show that the Post acted negligently and outside the scope of normal reporting. That is not evident in the articles.

The Trumpright is dreaming Benghazi dreams. When the emails became available, the deplorables wet themselves in anticipation of finding an email from Hillary to someone saying, ".... well, I say **** 'em. We're not sending in troops just because some pansy ambassador and a couple of marines are getting shot at". Instead, what they found was the grievous breach of security that Hillary's arrival schedule in the Hamptons was sent unsecure and was there for everyone to see (everyone who hadn't checked her publicly available schedule or the itinerary for the event she was heading to).

The fact that they quoted Nathan is only proof that they quoted Nathan. The hundreds and hundreds of lines in the legal filing pertaining to Nathan Phillips are evidence only of Nathan Phillips' actions, deeds, statements.

The Post's defense is going to be that within a reasonable amount of time as the facts became available they clarified their original reporting. It was a breaking story, reported in good faith, and corrected when more facts became available. It wasn't a target piece that they did research on but classified as breaking news. Reading some of the comments sections on articles about the lawsuit, the Trumpistas (many times just cutting and pasting their comments for news site to news site) think they're going to find emails or memos from the editors' desks saying "MAGA Hats? Get the little snot rags!"

I'm gonna be real surprised if they find anything more damning than the Hamptons arrival schedule. (You guys are gonna need some staying power. This suit may be going on after Trump's deceased and is no longer a hot-button issue.)
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 04:45 AM   #1944
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Bezos better be stocking up on KY Jelly over this KY kid because a jury is gonna love this case.
Very rarely do you find something witty on these boards.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 04:57 AM   #1945
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Is this the thread were right wingers congregate that won't fess up to the US right wing's very obvious and very serious problem with racism?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 05:39 AM   #1946
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,193
I tend to agree that this whole lawsuit is just a PR gambit. 1A is very strong.

They'd have to prove that WaPo knew that the story they were presenting was false and decided to run it anyway. 1A protects bias, and sloppy reporting is not actionable.

The fact that they sued the whole liberal world makes it pretty clear this is a PR stunt.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 05:53 AM   #1947
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Is this the thread were right wingers congregate that won't fess up to the US right wing's very obvious and very serious problem with racism?
It is to you and that's all that really matters
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:06 AM   #1948
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Is this the thread were right wingers congregate that won't fess up to the US right wing's very obvious and very serious problem with racism?
No, this is the thread where skeptics and critical thinkers congregate and discuss the leftist's very obvious and very serious problem with false claims of racism and race grifters.

The suggestion that what these kids did has anything to with racism is evidence that the original false story still resonates with race grifters.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:12 AM   #1949
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Those of us who, correctly, noted these severe problems, is what he didn't need. *We* noted that he was a white supremacist, petty, vindictive, a business failure, an ignoramus, and a money launderer with mob ties, and we told people that he'd be a horrific president. And we were correct. Those guys posting "this is how I won" memes aren't even smart enough to understand that they're literally calling themselves racist idiots who voted for the worst choice in a hissy fit. They're exactly at the same level as the Black Israelites - not worth talking to.
Precisely this type of strident sanctimony is why Donald Trump won.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:14 AM   #1950
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,701
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, this is the thread where skeptics and critical thinkers congregate and discuss the leftist's very obvious and very serious problem with false claims of racism and race grifters.

The suggestion that what these kids did has anything to with racism is evidence that the original false story still resonates with race grifters.
Tedious.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:18 AM   #1951
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,473
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Very rarely do you find something witty on these boards.
I agree to an extent -- I'm halfway with you here.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 08:40 AM   #1952
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Tedious.
I agree
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:26 AM   #1953
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Tedious.
Capital argument! CAPITAL!

It is indeed tedious to see see people repeating the long debunked claim that the boys were racist. Totally false and promulgated by actual hard core race grifters who issued deliberately misleading videos which were picked up and spread far and why by a gullible press so blinded by their partisan positions that they forgot to do their ******* jobs.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:37 AM   #1954
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,640
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Are you not following the conversation, Zig? Would you expect the State Attorney Generals to go out and produce a Youtube video and use it in a legal filing?
It's not obvious to me why the same standards would apply to a civil plaintiff and a State Attorney General. And I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure my expectations serve as a good metric to begin with. Do you have anything more concrete than this? Note that I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the way they present their suit, I'm just not convinced that there is anything a judge would find objectionable.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:55 AM   #1955
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not obvious to me why the same standards would apply to a civil plaintiff and a State Attorney General. And I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure my expectations serve as a good metric to begin with. Do you have anything more concrete than this? Note that I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the way they present their suit, I'm just not convinced that there is anything a judge would find objectionable.
there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with posting links to the internet, or even youtube videos. I happened to mention the Ca v. trump case for the sole reason that it was the most recent case complaint on the twitter handle big case bot and it was loaded with links to internet files. Why is Youtube different? crickets

FMW is raising some specious and totally frivolous objection to Youtube, not because it is legally improper, not for any substantive reason at all as far as i can tell but rather because it is "stupid" or something (and it gives one something to bitch about rather than defend the silly "first reading" nonsense which was 'strangely' abandoned after TBD curbstomped that silly argument into the gutter)
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:24 PM   #1956
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with posting links to the internet, or even youtube videos. I happened to mention the Ca v. trump case for the sole reason that it was the most recent case complaint on the twitter handle big case bot and it was loaded with links to internet files. Why is Youtube different? crickets

FMW is raising some specious and totally frivolous objection to Youtube, not because it is legally improper, not for any substantive reason at all as far as i can tell but rather because it is "stupid" or something (and it gives one something to bitch about rather than defend the silly "first reading" nonsense which was 'strangely' abandoned after TBD curbstomped that silly argument into the gutter)
Ma opinion is as good as the next man. Jus' because I'm not book smart like you Chicaggy make believe lawyers, don't mean I cain't have ma opinion. It's a free country.

I think it's amateurish and stupid. You get your partisan hackles up because you zoom in on "amateurish and stupid". That's because, well, you're a partisan. And you don't see the first two words, .... "I think". That's possibly because you don't perform that task yourself all that often. Why don't you call up Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and ask one of your make-believe lawyer friends what they think of the filing, itself. Not the 'cause' but the filing. I've prepared cases for trial with counsel. It's an amateurish and stupid gish gallop of a document.

Why doesn't the learned member from Crabgrass Creek go through the points in the filing and itemize for us how they actually pertain to a suit seeking a tort judgement against the WaPO. The filing's points are numbered. You can just identify them by number for us and then we can discuss, because this childish "haw haw foolmewunz says it's stupid that make him stupid haw haw" isn't proving anything other than that my opinion differs from yours and that I have a superior command of the English language.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:28 PM   #1957
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not obvious to me why the same standards would apply to a civil plaintiff and a State Attorney General. And I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure my expectations serve as a good metric to begin with. Do you have anything more concrete than this? Note that I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the way they present their suit, I'm just not convinced that there is anything a judge would find objectionable.
An attorney general is still an attorney. My question would be why you think an ambulance chaser's filing should be any different from a corporate attorney's, a City, State or Federal AG, an immigration lawyer or a criminal defense attorney. If you file an amateurish brief, it's an amateurish brief. The fact that you have "Esq" after your name would seem to connote that you aren't an amateur, so there is likely some professional motivation. What that is, we can discuss for several more pages, 'cuz as long as you're carrying TBD's lance onto the battlefield, you may have signed up for the long haul.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 07:36 PM   #1958
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Ma opinion is as good as the next man. Jus' because I'm not book smart like you Chicaggy make believe lawyer....
Chicaggy. Jesus...

The opinions you have expressed here are specious and the way they are expressed is puerile.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 08:13 PM   #1959
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,640
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
An attorney general is still an attorney.
Yes, I know both jobs fall a larger set. That doesn't answer my question.

Quote:
My question would be why you think an ambulance chaser's filing should be any different from a corporate attorney's, a City, State or Federal AG, an immigration lawyer or a criminal defense attorney.
I think civil complaints should be different than criminal complaints. And in many ways, they obviously are. Evidentiary standards are often more relaxed in civil suits. It wouldn't surprise me if those differences extended to more leeway on stylistic matters as well.

Quote:
If you file an amateurish brief, it's an amateurish brief.
Perhaps. But this is basically a subjective evaluation. What's the legal significance? Is there any at all?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 08:31 PM   #1960
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Chicaggy. Jesus...

The opinions you have expressed here are specious and the way they are expressed is puerile.
Playing to my audience, son. You'll be coming along with your analysis of their suit shortly, then? We'll wait.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.