Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They can get you sued, however, if they are defamatory."Kathy Griffin" is news media?
Ooooooooooooooooopsie.
Even if this "Kathy Griffin" were news media ---- nothing you posted here reports anything. You'll need what we call "declarative sentences".
You're desperate. IF that had been your kid, you'd be ready to tear the offenders heads off. His name was dragged through the mud, someone didn't have to be in the media to damage this kids name. The media and others like scum Kathy Griffen, went out of their way to hurt and damage these kids. A future employer Google's or Bing's his name and bingo, no chance of a job. Go somewhere else, I don't care that you were innocent, this came from somewhere. If you treat innocent private citizens like this, batten down your hatches, you're going to be sued, and rightfully so.
Oh please. Nobody in the world uses Bing.
Speaking of "desperate".
But you might Google "libel" and learn how it works. I'll tell ya right now how it doesn't work ---- you can't do it without evidence.
And "evidence" means a quote. A link. A screenshot. Some damn thing. You know, exactly what I challenged anyone to post two months ago, getting not a single one.
That's the easy part. There are thousands of videos of these people saying these things, over and over as with Kathy Griffen and scores of others. I posted the "Tweets" from the scum Kathy Griffen.
Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
There's some logic in there somewhere, I'm sure Pogo imagines.They can get you sued, however, if they are defamatory.You're desperate. IF that had been your kid, you'd be ready to tear the offenders heads off. His name was dragged through the mud, someone didn't have to be in the media to damage this kids name. The media and others like scum Kathy Griffen, went out of their way to hurt and damage these kids. A future employer Google's or Bing's his name and bingo, no chance of a job. Go somewhere else, I don't care that you were innocent, this came from somewhere. If you treat innocent private citizens like this, batten down your hatches, you're going to be sued, and rightfully so.
Oh please. Nobody in the world uses Bing.
Speaking of "desperate".
But you might Google "libel" and learn how it works. I'll tell ya right now how it doesn't work ---- you can't do it without evidence.
And "evidence" means a quote. A link. A screenshot. Some damn thing. You know, exactly what I challenged anyone to post two months ago, getting not a single one.
That's the easy part. There are thousands of videos of these people saying these things, over and over as with Kathy Griffen and scores of others. I posted the "Tweets" from the scum Kathy Griffen.
Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
Lemme get all comfy while a jagoff who waltzes around dressed as a kid with jelly all over his face giving the finger tells the class about "defamatory", FingerFuck.
Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
You ignored this:Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Excellent. Rather than a link, let's just repost the whole thing:
===========================================
Again back to YOUR OWN LINK here.... the document alleges seven WaPo articles that it ass-serts "published or republished the following false and defamatory statements" and follows with quotes that are supposed to show the Post alleging Smirk-Boi "instigated a confrontation", "engaged in racist conduct", "assaulted Philips" and the like. Yet through every one of these examples (many of which are repeated from a previous article) not once does their own quote show any evidence that the Post did so. The vast majority of them are quoting Philips, other bystanders and a photojournalist. NONE of the assertions appear in the articles. Zero.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we continue to sit and wait for that evidence. Which is what I've been noting for two months-plus.
Not once. Anywhere.
It's all there. Prove me wrong. Show me what I missed.
===========================================
You can't find any. No one else has either. Including the suit.
Yeah you did. And fucking "tweets" are NOT NEWS MEDIA.
Holy fucking SHIT
You are such a fool and so very desperate. A little sad really.
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Hans von Spakovsky · Mar. 16, 2019
Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.
Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with the Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”
The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”
[...]
Covington’s Nick Sandmann Launches His Second Defamation Lawsuit — This Time Against CNN
Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I've posted tons of quotes, but you claim they can't be trusted because they're in Lin Wood's legal brief. Yet, you use quotes from that same legal brief to exonerate the Washington Post.Once AGAIN ---- don't know why I even bother with a retard who can't understand a simple pun ---- there's no EVIDENCE there.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything they like. Without EVIDENCE it's worthless. That's why I keep asking for EVIDENCE. Seeing none, the post is dismissed.
I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Pod pogo. Still crying and REFUSING to look at the WaPo article where they admit they lied.
You ignored this:Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.I have no quotes from the Washington Post. I have no actual evidence from anybody. Including the suit, which I read when it came out. That document makes implications that it never quotes.
Now again, the basis here is that some person was defamed in the public mind. How 'defamed' can that have been when no one in the public, given over two months in an open-book test, can come up with a single instance thereof?
Not one. ZERO.
And don't sit here and lie --- I've never maintained that some quote "can't be trusted because it's in a legal brief". There ARE NO such quotes.
Just as there is no post where you took responsibility for that bogus thread about a Democratic convention meeting on trolley tracks in Wisconsin. You claimed you acknowledged that, and you didn't. Don't try to snow me, Hunior.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Excellent. Rather than a link, let's just repost the whole thing:
===========================================
Again back to YOUR OWN LINK here.... the document alleges seven WaPo articles that it ass-serts "published or republished the following false and defamatory statements" and follows with quotes that are supposed to show the Post alleging Smirk-Boi "instigated a confrontation", "engaged in racist conduct", "assaulted Philips" and the like. Yet through every one of these examples (many of which are repeated from a previous article) not once does their own quote show any evidence that the Post did so. The vast majority of them are quoting Philips, other bystanders and a photojournalist. NONE of the assertions appear in the articles. Zero.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we continue to sit and wait for that evidence. Which is what I've been noting for two months-plus.
Not once. Anywhere.
It's all there. Prove me wrong. Show me what I missed.
===========================================
You can't find any. No one else has either. Including the suit.
So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?
On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
You ignored this:Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Excellent. Rather than a link, let's just repost the whole thing:
===========================================
Again back to YOUR OWN LINK here.... the document alleges seven WaPo articles that it ass-serts "published or republished the following false and defamatory statements" and follows with quotes that are supposed to show the Post alleging Smirk-Boi "instigated a confrontation", "engaged in racist conduct", "assaulted Philips" and the like. Yet through every one of these examples (many of which are repeated from a previous article) not once does their own quote show any evidence that the Post did so. The vast majority of them are quoting Philips, other bystanders and a photojournalist. NONE of the assertions appear in the articles. Zero.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we continue to sit and wait for that evidence. Which is what I've been noting for two months-plus.
Not once. Anywhere.
It's all there. Prove me wrong. Show me what I missed.
===========================================
You can't find any. No one else has either. Including the suit.
So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?
On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
I didn't "ignore" jack shit, Fingerfuck. I pointed out that they can't SHOW that quote. And you can't either. I pointed that out a fucking MONTH ago as your own link shows.
ANYBODY ANYWHERE can claim "WaPo said X" or "NYT said Y". Actually proving that they did so is a whooooooooooooooole 'nother smoke. Get it now??
See, just as a said: Your cites from the lawsuit are "legitimate," while mine don't prove anything.You ignored this:Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.All lies, of course. You referred to Lin Wood's brief and claimed that all the quotes were from people other than the Washington Post. When I posted out the Wood also quoted statements made by people working for the Washington Post, you claimed those didn't quote, only the quotes you referred were legitimate.
You're an idiot douchebag, Pogo
Who do you think you're fooling?
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Excellent. Rather than a link, let's just repost the whole thing:
===========================================
Again back to YOUR OWN LINK here.... the document alleges seven WaPo articles that it ass-serts "published or republished the following false and defamatory statements" and follows with quotes that are supposed to show the Post alleging Smirk-Boi "instigated a confrontation", "engaged in racist conduct", "assaulted Philips" and the like. Yet through every one of these examples (many of which are repeated from a previous article) not once does their own quote show any evidence that the Post did so. The vast majority of them are quoting Philips, other bystanders and a photojournalist. NONE of the assertions appear in the articles. Zero.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we continue to sit and wait for that evidence. Which is what I've been noting for two months-plus.
Not once. Anywhere.
It's all there. Prove me wrong. Show me what I missed.
===========================================
You can't find any. No one else has either. Including the suit.
So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?
On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
I didn't "ignore" jack shit, Fingerfuck. I pointed out that they can't SHOW that quote. And you can't either. I pointed that out a fucking MONTH ago as your own link shows.
ANYBODY ANYWHERE can claim "WaPo said X" or "NYT said Y". Actually proving that they did so is a whooooooooooooooole 'nother smoke. Get it now??
I didn't "ignore" jack shit, Fingerfuck. I pointed out that they can't SHOW that quote. And you can't either. I pointed that out a fucking MONTH ago as your own link shows.
ANYBODY ANYWHERE can claim "WaPo said X" or "NYT said Y". Actually proving that they did so is a whooooooooooooooole 'nother smoke. Get it now??
See, just as a said: Your cites from the lawsuit are "legitimate," while mine don't prove anything.You ignored this:Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post.
Yuh huh.
Go ahead and link us to those posts, Fingerfuck. Post 'em right here, pal.
aaaaaaaaaaaaand CUE crickets. Again.
Excellent. Rather than a link, let's just repost the whole thing:
===========================================
Again back to YOUR OWN LINK here.... the document alleges seven WaPo articles that it ass-serts "published or republished the following false and defamatory statements" and follows with quotes that are supposed to show the Post alleging Smirk-Boi "instigated a confrontation", "engaged in racist conduct", "assaulted Philips" and the like. Yet through every one of these examples (many of which are repeated from a previous article) not once does their own quote show any evidence that the Post did so. The vast majority of them are quoting Philips, other bystanders and a photojournalist. NONE of the assertions appear in the articles. Zero.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we continue to sit and wait for that evidence. Which is what I've been noting for two months-plus.
Not once. Anywhere.
It's all there. Prove me wrong. Show me what I missed.
===========================================
You can't find any. No one else has either. Including the suit.
So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?
On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
I didn't "ignore" jack shit, Fingerfuck. I pointed out that they can't SHOW that quote. And you can't either. I pointed that out a fucking MONTH ago as your own link shows.
ANYBODY ANYWHERE can claim "WaPo said X" or "NYT said Y". Actually proving that they did so is a whooooooooooooooole 'nother smoke. Get it now??
Ummm, just like a doctor gets slapped with a malpractice suit
for gross negligence or carelessness on their part,
for causing a patient unnecessary problems....
if ANY of the reporters would have done their job
and did thorough investigations, to begin with...
They would not have become casualties
of their own narrative they’ve been feeding the public
It’s their JOB TO KNOW, IDIOT
What's to investigate? The story was that "there's this video of a smirk". Whelp --- there was. There still is. And?Now...PLENTYWhat's to investigate?
No bitch...try againThe story was that "there's this video of a smirk". Whelp --- there was. There still is. And?
The story was...
Red MAGA cap = Trump supporters
Trump supporters = Trump
Trump = Orange Man Bad
once AGAIN ... you can pretend the "story" was whatever you'd like to pretend it was.
What you can't do is show evidence of it outside your own head.An Open Apology Toonce AGAIN ... you can pretend the "story" was whatever you'd like to pretend it was.
Covington Catholic MAGA Hat Harassment Team
Nigga, I don’t need to see a “longer video” to know
if a group of white boys wearing MAGA hats
at an Indigenous People’s March are actually racist!
You could’ve stopped at “white boys wearing MAGA hats!”
Apologies Come Flooding InWhat you can't do is show evidence of it outside your own head
After Larger Picture of Covington Boys Is Revealed
The problem with hot takes is that they often require people
to extrapolate from incomplete information.
There are certain circumstances
where this is extremely problematic —
say, if it involves high school kids being blamed
for a racist incident based on a short video
and the fact they were wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.
Alyssa Milano to Covington boys:
'Sorry not sorry'
Alyssa Milano refused to apologize Wednesday
for comparing the pro-President Trump hats
worn by the Covington Catholic High School boys
to Ku Klux Klan hoods.
Some in Twitter Mob
Delete or Apologize for Tweets
About Covington Students
Some celebrities and journalists are facing some serious Twitter-regret in the aftermath of the shameful cyber-mob attack on MAGA hat-wearing teens from Kentucky. As more of the original video of the event at the Lincoln Memorial on Friday afternoon was released showing that the group of Catholic school kids were actually the target of intimidation rather than the perpetrators of it, many in the Twitter-mob are quietly deleting tweets that were critical of the teens.
Some of the more honorable people who were taken in by the fake news have apologized for their tweets critical of the students. Dilbert creator Scott Adams posted a video in which he apologized for his initial reaction to a CNN story about the incident. “Upon seeing new videos and seeing different angles and seeing the complete video and seeing the context, everything that CNN reported about this was absolutely fake news,” Adams said.
Perhaps the saddest part of this entire story about the Covington boys is that faced with actual and incontrovertible evidence that the boys did nothing to provoke the Native American Phillips and were, in fact, the targets of vicious name-calling by members the Black Hebrew Israelite cult, many are still sticking to the initial take on the story.
Also, where is the outrage about the racist and homophobic comments from those cultists? They’ve called the students “crackers,” “school shooters,” and “incest children,” among other things.
Perhaps President Trump is right when he characterizes some in the media as “the enemy of the people.” In the rush to be first to report this story, no one investigated what the actual story was. Instead, they went with cherry-picked video and photos that supposedly confirmed their own biases. They attacked school kids because of their hats. In the end, this story is yet another example of a news media that is far more concerned with narrative than truth.
Red MAGA cap = Trump supporters
Trump supporters = Trump
Trump = Orange Man Bad
Orange Man Bad = Trump supporters bad too
YOU can pretend the story
is whatever YOU pretend it’s not
What you can’t do is see the evidence
outside your own head....
while it’s shoved so far up your ass!
Are you deliberately acting like a retard just to avoid a concession?
"Alyssa Milano" and "Scott Adams" and links from "theroot.com" whatever the fuck that is ---- ARE NOT CNN, ARE NOT 'THE MEDIA", ARE NOT NBC. *****THOSE***** would be the entities targeted for "libel" which in this case means intentionally publishing false accounts of something. And *****THAT***** is what you have no evidence of.
How various random people in the general public assessed and/or re-assessed the situation has ZERO to do with that.
Gee, who would’ve thunk...Are you deliberately acting like a retard just to avoid a concession?
Bitch, what does any of your mumbo jumboAlyssa Milano" and "Scott Adams" and links from "theroot.com" whatever the fuck that is ---- ARE NOT CNN, ARE NOT 'THE MEDIA", ARE NOT NBC. *****THOSE***** would be the entities targeted for "libel" which in this case means intentionally publishing false accounts of something. And *****THAT***** is what you have no evidence of.
Oh, it has EVERYTHING to do with itHow various random people in the general public assessed and/or re-assessed the situation has ZERO to do with that.
