Covington Kid Nick Sandmann Sues NBC/MSNBC for $275 Million

[Ghost of a Rider]

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

See above.

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

Pfft.

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

Once AGAIN --- the lawsuit, and therefore the evidence available to it, is the topic of this thread. I understand that you want to make it about "hats" and "what this or that group thinks" and "who was standing where when" but these are tangents.

Tangents or not, I'm still not avoiding the issue as you claim.

Besides, my initial response to you was about a comment YOU made that was NOT about the lawsuit. Specifically, your remark that the Covington boys approached the BHIs. If anyone went off on a tangent, it was you. I was merely responding to your tangent.

May I say that it is disingenuous of you to say I'm avoiding the issue of the lawsuit when you know I never said a thing about it. May I also say that for someone who has strong opinions about Sandmann and the incident overall, you know remarkably little about it.

I highlighted no such thing. I did note that progressive hunter 's video, and the WaPo page I quoted, both observed the Covingtons approaching the BHIs (and in fact took that further to question the judgment of the chaperones who approved the confrontation via the "tribal chant". I'm sure you remember that phrase since I believe it was you who questioned me as to its origin.

The Covington boys did not approach the BHIs. At least, not as a group. A few approached (maybe 4 or 5) to better hear what they were saying and then went back to their group. There were no Covington boys in the vicinity of the BHIs when Phillips came on the scene.

Those are all tangents to the point of whether the lawsuit has merit, and responses to other tangents brought up by others.

Okay, so it's their tangents. Either way, it wasn't my tangent.

None of them demonstrate that the lawsuit has or does not have merit, unless you're about to assert something like that WaPo claimed the Covingtons moved toward them while you in your barcalounger in Idaho somehow "know" they didn't.

Fuck the lawsuit. I responded to something you said that just happened to not be about the lawsuit and then you accuse me of going off on a tangent.

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

See above.

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

Pfft.

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

Once AGAIN --- the lawsuit, and therefore the evidence available to it, is the topic of this thread. I understand that you want to make it about "hats" and "what this or that group thinks" and "who was standing where when" but these are tangents.

Tangents or not, I'm still not avoiding the issue as you claim.

Besides, my initial response to you was about a comment YOU made that was NOT about the lawsuit. Specifically, your remark that the Covington boys approached the BHIs. If anyone went off on a tangent, it was you. I was merely responding to your tangent.

May I say that it is disingenuous of you to say I'm avoiding the issue of the lawsuit when you know I never said a thing about it. May I also say that for someone who has strong opinions about Sandmann and the incident overall, you know remarkably little about it.

I highlighted no such thing. I did note that progressive hunter 's video, and the WaPo page I quoted, both observed the Covingtons approaching the BHIs (and in fact took that further to question the judgment of the chaperones who approved the confrontation via the "tribal chant". I'm sure you remember that phrase since I believe it was you who questioned me as to its origin.

Those are all tangents to the point of whether the lawsuit has merit, and responses to other tangents brought up by others. None of them demonstrate that the lawsuit has or does not have merit, unless you're about to assert something like that WaPo claimed the Covingtons moved toward them while you in your barcalounger in Idaho somehow "know" they didn't.

you are so beyond help its just sad to watch,,,

 

[bodecea]

How are those attention getting lawsuits coming along?

 

[Pogo]

How are those attention getting lawsuits coming along?

Right up there with Sean Spicer's

 

[Rustic]

How are those attention getting lawsuits coming along?

Lol
Nathan Phillips is a fraud and the media backed him... End of story

 

[caddo kid]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

 

[Rustic]

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

 

[progressive hunter]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

NO YOU DUMB FUCK,,,

YOU CANT JUST SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING,,,

what are you some braindead moron<<<

 

[bodecea]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

NO YOU DUMB FUCK,,,

YOU CANT JUST SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING,,,

what are you some braindead moron<<<

Actually, you CAN sue anyone for anything....doesn't mean you'll win.

 

[progressive hunter]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

NO YOU DUMB FUCK,,,

YOU CANT JUST SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING,,,

what are you some braindead moron<<<

Actually, you CAN sue anyone for anything....doesn't mean you'll win.

you can want to,,, but if the judge laughs uncontrollably and threatens to shoot you for being an ignorant fuck,,,

in other words you can file for a suit but that doesnt mean it doesnt get thrown out before it even gets to court,,,

there has to be standing,,,

I cant sue you because caddo is a moron,,,

 

[bodecea]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

NO YOU DUMB FUCK,,,

YOU CANT JUST SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING,,,

what are you some braindead moron<<<

Actually, you CAN sue anyone for anything....doesn't mean you'll win.

you can want to,,, but if the judge laughs uncontrollably and threatens to shoot you for being an ignorant fuck,,,

in other words you can file for a suit but that doesnt mean it doesnt get thrown out before it even gets to court,,,

there has to be standing,,,

I cant sue you because caddo is a moron,,,

You live somewhere where a judge threatens to shoot you? Where is that?

 

[progressive hunter]

anyone can sue anyone for anything BUT Nick is like a turd circling a punch bowl, only worse.

Nick Sandmann is an enigma wrapped in a bubble gum wrapper, wrapped in a toilet paper roll, with human feces already applied to it. Good luck Nick, you prick.

NO YOU DUMB FUCK,,,

YOU CANT JUST SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING,,,

what are you some braindead moron<<<

Actually, you CAN sue anyone for anything....doesn't mean you'll win.

you can want to,,, but if the judge laughs uncontrollably and threatens to shoot you for being an ignorant fuck,,,

in other words you can file for a suit but that doesnt mean it doesnt get thrown out before it even gets to court,,,

there has to be standing,,,

I cant sue you because caddo is a moron,,,

You live somewhere where a judge threatens to shoot you? Where is that?

REALITYVILLE,,,

 

[Pogo]

Well, we're coming up on six months since anybody said anything here, STILL waiting for anyone to find any evidence of published libel.

Maybe it's because the fake lawsuit was dismissed three months ago:

>> CINCINNATI [July 26] – The $250 million lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post has been dismissed by a federal judge.

William Bertelsman, who heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, issued the ruling Friday.

Nick and his attorneys, Todd McMurtry and L. Lin Wood, alleged that the gist of The Washington Post's first article conveyed that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips, engaged in racist conduct, and engaged in taunts.

But, Bertelsman wrote, "this is not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things." <<​

Indeed it didn't. As I kept telling you morons. This is why reading is fun-duh-mental.

Now if anyone can direct us to the Sean Spicer suit against the Associated Press for reporting the news.............

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well, we're coming up on six months since anybody said anything here, STILL waiting for anyone to find any evidence of published libel.

Maybe it's because the fake lawsuit was dismissed three months ago:

>> CINCINNATI [July 26] – The $250 million lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post has been dismissed by a federal judge.​

​

William Bertelsman, who heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, issued the ruling Friday.​

​

Nick and his attorneys, Todd McMurtry and L. Lin Wood, alleged that the gist of The Washington Post's first article conveyed that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips, engaged in racist conduct, and engaged in taunts.​

​

But, Bertelsman wrote, "this is not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things." <<​

Indeed it didn't. As I kept telling you morons. This is why reading is fun-duh-mental.

Now if anyone can direct us to the Sean Spicer suit against the Associated Press for reporting the news.............

Where we at on this Pogo?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, we're coming up on six months since anybody said anything here, STILL waiting for anyone to find any evidence of published libel.

Maybe it's because the fake lawsuit was dismissed three months ago:

>> CINCINNATI [July 26] – The $250 million lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post has been dismissed by a federal judge.​

​

William Bertelsman, who heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, issued the ruling Friday.​

​

Nick and his attorneys, Todd McMurtry and L. Lin Wood, alleged that the gist of The Washington Post's first article conveyed that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips, engaged in racist conduct, and engaged in taunts.​

​

But, Bertelsman wrote, "this is not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things." <<​

Indeed it didn't. As I kept telling you morons. This is why reading is fun-duh-mental.

Now if anyone can direct us to the Sean Spicer suit against the Associated Press for reporting the news.............

Hey Sluggo you lying fuck, any comments?

 

[two_iron]

marxist shitstains actually enjoy being slow-witted....