Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,313
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on May 5, 2019 19:03:02 GMT
Meaning the Sandmann suits are the frivolous ones based on greed. How would he pick one media outlet to sue though? I do think the media initially misrepresented/mishandled this story. How can you say "Well I will sue NBC but not ABC and CBS"? It kind of makes sense to me that you have to kind of go after every source. Now of course there is proving intent, damages etc. But that's a different area. I am always fascinated when the press is sued. With freedom of the press comes a lot of responsibility and I think responsible journalism is becoming more and more harder to find. He will never see those millions. Sad thing about today's system is, and this is my own thoughts no real way of backing this up, is that you have to sue for a million to get thousands.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 19:46:31 GMT
Bless your heart, too. Really hard I'm neither desperate nor deflecting. I'm just not going to dance this dance with you. Your semantic gymnastics are ridiculous, and then you twist any challenge to the idiocy you spew as deflection or demonizing. You can tell yourself you're dropping truth bombs that the libs can't handle and I'll keep telling you to go fuck yourself. Facts = semantics. Got it. Were you there sitting on Sandmann’s shoulder when all this was happening? If not your “facts” are observations, even with the video, they are observations. What none of us are seeing, is the entire picture because we weren’t there. So our opinions are based on observations, not facts. Example, my observation of the kid is he and his buddies are smart ass punks. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. But still. Your observation is different and you are trying to support it by building a narrative to support it. A narrative based on not seeing the entire picture. So it’s flawed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 20:14:13 GMT
Facts = semantics. Got it. Were you there sitting on Sandmann’s shoulder when all this was happening? If not your “facts” are observations, even with the video, they are observations. What none of us are seeing, is the entire picture because we weren’t there. So our opinions are based on observations, not facts. Example, my observation of the kid is he and his buddies are smart ass punks. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. But still. Your observation is different and you are trying to support it by building a narrative to support it. A narrative based on not seeing the entire picture. So it’s flawed. Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 5, 2019 20:54:32 GMT
Meaning the Sandmann suits are the frivolous ones based on greed. How would he pick one media outlet to sue though? I do think the media initially misrepresented/mishandled this story. How can you say "Well I will sue NBC but not ABC and CBS"? It kind of makes sense to me that you have to kind of go after every source. Now of course there is proving intent, damages etc. But that's a different area. I am always fascinated when the press is sued. With freedom of the press comes a lot of responsibility and I think responsible journalism is becoming more and more harder to find. He will never see those millions. Sad thing about today's system is, and this is my own thoughts no real way of backing this up, is that you have to sue for a million to get thousands. I don’t know. Choose the one you perceive as most egregious? Choose the one who didn’t publish a retraction? Choose the one who didn’t make an effort to clarify the story when more details emerged? Or is it better to sue as many outlets as possible so even if some are dismissed, there’s still a chance for a settlement from those left? No one’s stopping him from suing as many outfits as he wants. He can sue every network and every Twitter user and every single individual who has criticized him to his heart’s content. Doesn’t mean his lawsuits have merit. Vox is wondering why they weren’t sued because they and a host of other news outlets covered the story along the same vein as WaPo, and Vox doesn’t even say they made a mistake. They’re saying “the truth is that we’re never going to know exactly what happened that day,” while WaPo already published clarifications to the prior publication. So I’m assuming Sandmann is going after those with the deepest pockets. And that’s precisely why I think this isn’t about harm and principle; this is about a bonanza and greed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 21:00:16 GMT
Were you there sitting on Sandmann’s shoulder when all this was happening? If not your “facts” are observations, even with the video, they are observations. What none of us are seeing, is the entire picture because we weren’t there. So our opinions are based on observations, not facts. Example, my observation of the kid is he and his buddies are smart ass punks. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. But still. Your observation is different and you are trying to support it by building a narrative to support it. A narrative based on not seeing the entire picture. So it’s flawed. Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts. He absolutely did say he was a Vietnam Vet huh? Snopes.. “While it’s true that a number of January 2019 accounts from national news outlets incorrectly labeled Phillips as a “Vietnam veteran,” the use of that label in those reports did not, as far as we can tell, originate with Phillips himself. The Native American activist told reporters in January 2019 that he was a “Vietnam-times” or “Vietnam-era” veteran, meaning that he was an active member of the armed services during the time of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam (not that he had been deployed to Vietnam during that period).” I read this earlier.. “Nuances frequently get lost amidst social media uproar and hastily filed news reports.”. Which means it helps if one is sitting on the shoulder to get the entire picture.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 5, 2019 21:16:19 GMT
You should know by now, the only (alternative, fake, opinion) “so-called-facts “ that the Queen Gaslighter spews are The ONLY facts. Period. End of story. She desperately clings to her echo chamber.
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,017
Jun 25, 2014 20:22:13 GMT
|
Post by huskergal on May 5, 2019 21:44:05 GMT
Fake: He was smirking.
|
|
|
Post by threegirls on May 5, 2019 23:17:24 GMT
I don’t need a narrative to read his smirk. It speaks for itself. The same way a woman is judged for her resting bitch face? What an insanely asinine statement. Judging a book by its cover is wrong and just plain stupid. zookeeper This hit home with me. I can't tell you the number of times my facial expression has been misconstrued. I've been asked, "What are you so mad about?" or "Why are you sad?" Ugh, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone asked me one of those questions. I remember from my childhood my mom always asking me those questions. Sometimes my husband of 20 years asks me. Various other people throughout the years have also asked. People, I'm just sitting here. No need to be concerned. If I'm mad, I'll let you know! Maybe the kid didn't know what to do other than just stand there with a goofy look. I know I've been judged by the look on my face. I didn't like it.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on May 6, 2019 0:07:42 GMT
Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts. He absolutely did say he was a Vietnam Vet huh? Snopes.. “While it’s true that a number of January 2019 accounts from national news outlets incorrectly labeled Phillips as a “Vietnam veteran,” the use of that label in those reports did not, as far as we can tell, originate with Phillips himself. The Native American activist told reporters in January 2019 that he was a “Vietnam-times” or “Vietnam-era” veteran, meaning that he was an active member of the armed services during the time of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam (not that he had been deployed to Vietnam during that period).” I read this earlier.. “Nuances frequently get lost amidst social media uproar and hastily filed news reports.”. Which means it helps if one is sitting on the shoulder to get the entire picture. Thanks for posting this. I meant to include this to dispute the stolen valor claims. It seems his seems his words were taken out of context and used to smear his reputation.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on May 6, 2019 0:12:38 GMT
Were you there sitting on Sandmann’s shoulder when all this was happening? If not your “facts” are observations, even with the video, they are observations. What none of us are seeing, is the entire picture because we weren’t there. So our opinions are based on observations, not facts. Example, my observation of the kid is he and his buddies are smart ass punks. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. But still. Your observation is different and you are trying to support it by building a narrative to support it. A narrative based on not seeing the entire picture. So it’s flawed. Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts. You are working really fucking hard to defend and justify a joke about rape. Tell me, in what context is "it's not rape if you enjoy it" hilarious or appropriate? When it's a "black israelite" you're threatening with rape? Or when it's a liberal woman who was likely asking for it in the moments before the video started? This is seriously a new low for you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 3:19:56 GMT
Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts. He absolutely did say he was a Vietnam Vet huh? Snopes.. “While it’s true that a number of January 2019 accounts from national news outlets incorrectly labeled Phillips as a “Vietnam veteran,” the use of that label in those reports did not, as far as we can tell, originate with Phillips himself. The Native American activist told reporters in January 2019 that he was a “Vietnam-times” or “Vietnam-era” veteran, meaning that he was an active member of the armed services during the time of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam (not that he had been deployed to Vietnam during that period).” I read this earlier.. “Nuances frequently get lost amidst social media uproar and hastily filed news reports.”. Which means it helps if one is sitting on the shoulder to get the entire picture. "I'm a Vietnam vet." "I don't talk much about my Vietnam time." "When I come home, I was spit on." He also claimed he was a "Recon Ranger" when in fact he worked on refrigerators. Those are his words, not someone misquoting him. Those are the words of someone who wanted people to think he served in ways and places he did not.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 3:44:30 GMT
It seems his seems his words were taken out of context and used to smear his reputation. Like a facial expression being taken out of contexted and used to smear someone's reputation?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 4:07:09 GMT
Fact: Damn near every video online that shows the kid saying "It's not rape if you enjoy it." is clipped of what happened before he said it, which was the black hebrew israelites saying racist things. Fact: Those videos are clipped only to show his response and not what he was responding to. Fact: The girls' 8 second video devoid of what happened before the boys yelled MAGA at them is not enough to make an informed conclusion as to who instigated it. Fact: No one attacked Nathan Phillip for his service. Fact: He absolutely did make statements that led people to think he served in Vietnam. Those are the undisputed facts that you are responding to and they don't require me to have been sitting on Sandmann's shoulder to know they are indeed facts. You are working really fucking hard to defend and justify a joke about rape. Tell me, in what context is "it's not rape if you enjoy it" hilarious or appropriate? When it's a "black israelite" you're threatening with rape? Or when it's a liberal woman who was likely asking for it in the moments before the video started? This is seriously a new low for you. You're working really hard to put words in my mouth in order to deflect from facts that contradict your narrative. Extremely desperate, especially for someone who "wasn't going to engage".
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on May 6, 2019 4:09:34 GMT
It seems his seems his words were taken out of context and used to smear his reputation. Like a facial expression being taken out of contexted and used to smear someone's reputation? Feel free to read my other posts on this thread. I agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 4:13:18 GMT
He absolutely did say he was a Vietnam Vet huh? Snopes.. “While it’s true that a number of January 2019 accounts from national news outlets incorrectly labeled Phillips as a “Vietnam veteran,” the use of that label in those reports did not, as far as we can tell, originate with Phillips himself. The Native American activist told reporters in January 2019 that he was a “Vietnam-times” or “Vietnam-era” veteran, meaning that he was an active member of the armed services during the time of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam (not that he had been deployed to Vietnam during that period).” I read this earlier.. “Nuances frequently get lost amidst social media uproar and hastily filed news reports.”. Which means it helps if one is sitting on the shoulder to get the entire picture. "I'm a Vietnam vet." "I don't talk much about my Vietnam time." "When I come home, I was spit on." He also claimed he was a "Recon Ranger" when in fact he worked on refrigerators. Those are his words, not someone misquoting him. Those are the words of someone who wanted people to think he served in ways and places he did not. On that day in January, according to snopes, those words did not originate with him. I’m going with them.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on May 6, 2019 4:16:42 GMT
You are working really fucking hard to defend and justify a joke about rape. Tell me, in what context is "it's not rape if you enjoy it" hilarious or appropriate? When it's a "black israelite" you're threatening with rape? Or when it's a liberal woman who was likely asking for it in the moments before the video started? This is seriously a new low for you. You're working really hard to put words in my mouth in order to deflect from facts that contradict your narrative. Extremely desperate, especially for someone who "wasn't going to engage". I don't think you understood the words that I typed, but you go ahead and tell yourself you issued a sick burn and pat your veteran insulting, rape threat defending self on the back. And you're right - I'm engaging when I said I wouldn't. It's just that I find your incessant attempts to defend a comment about rape so fucking gross that I can't help but engage you. I guess that's what trolls do, though; say the grossest, most inflammatory thing they can, just to get a response.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 5:21:37 GMT
You're working really hard to put words in my mouth in order to deflect from facts that contradict your narrative. Extremely desperate, especially for someone who "wasn't going to engage". I don't think you understood the words that I typed, but you go ahead and tell yourself you issued a sick burn and pat your veteran insulting, rape threat defending self on the back. And you're right - I'm engaging when I said I wouldn't. It's just that I find your incessant attempts to defend a comment about rape so fucking gross that I can't help but engage you. I guess that's what trolls do, though; say the grossest, most inflammatory thing they can, just to get a response. Then, according to your description that would make you the troll, because I have not said what you are attributing to me. If you can't have a conversation without doing that, we're done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 5:29:04 GMT
"I'm a Vietnam vet." "I don't talk much about my Vietnam time." "When I come home, I was spit on." He also claimed he was a "Recon Ranger" when in fact he worked on refrigerators. Those are his words, not someone misquoting him. Those are the words of someone who wanted people to think he served in ways and places he did not. On that day in January, according to snopes, those words did not originate with him. I’m going with them. You're not getting all of the information there is, from Snopes. I wouldn't count on them being the end all, be all, word this time. They are leaving a lot of facts out. Those words most certainly did originate with him and he's on video saying them. He's on his own video saying he has section 8 housing because he "was in theater" meaning he was in the war. A blatant lie he told. Same video that he made himself, HE says hes' a "Vietnam vet" not a Vietnam-era vet. He's also interviewed in Vogue magazine saying he was a "Recon Ranger". We won't bother getting into the major problem with what branch he served under and what he's calling himself. The only response to it is stolen valor. He spent 4 years in the military and came out still as an E-1 with 3 AWOLs. Those are his words, not someone misquoting him. Those are the words of someone who wanted people to think he served in ways and places he did not.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 7:57:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 1:13:05 GMT
WaPo suit dismissed: A very significant ruling in the media law world came Friday: A federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post. High school student Nicholas Sandmann filed the lawsuit after video of his encounter with Native American elder Nathan Phillips at a March for Life rally in Washington, DC, went viral online. www.cnn.com/2019/07/27/media/washington-post-defamation-lawsuit-sandmann/index.htmlAlso posted in Trump thread, but thought it would help to have it here too.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 28, 2019 1:23:23 GMT
WaPo suit dismissed: A very significant ruling in the media law world came Friday: A federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post. High school student Nicholas Sandmann filed the lawsuit after video of his encounter with Native American elder Nathan Phillips at a March for Life rally in Washington, DC, went viral online. www.cnn.com/2019/07/27/media/washington-post-defamation-lawsuit-sandmann/index.htmlAlso posted in Trump thread, but thought it would help to have it here too. Well, his parents plan to appeal, of course - or rather, his lawyers do. They're still hoping for their big payday.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 28, 2019 2:49:25 GMT
oh, @shhfzas left? gee, that’s too bad.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 28, 2019 13:14:44 GMT
oh, @shhfzas left? gee, that’s too bad. I’m sure she is just here under another identity. That’s the way that group rolls.
|
|