SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> I ain't saying she is a gold digger /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1666140103 Message started by pg on 10/18/22 at 17:41:43

Title: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by pg on 10/18/22 at 17:41:43 but she isn't messin' with no broke broke https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/mother-george-floyds-daughter-sues-kanye-west-250-million-saying-george-floyd-died-fentanyl-causing-emotional-distress/ Best regards,

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by pg on 10/19/22 at 03:16:51 Don't go against the narrative or you will be destroyed. Best regards,

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/22 at 11:19:08 I guess after the Alex Jones lawsuit, the doors are open and you can sue anybody by just saying they hurt your feelings. I’m going to sue our fair and balanced moderator for repeating the lie that January 6 was an insurrection when it wasn’t. That hurts me and causes me emotional distress. Expect a call from my lawyer. He’s from the law firm of Dewey, Chetum and Howell.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Serowbot on 10/19/22 at 14:42:57 A week following the attack, journalists were searching for an appropriate word to describe the event.[514] According to the Associated Press, U.S. media outlets first described the developments on January 6 as "a rally or protest", but as the events of the day escalated and further reporting and images emerged, the descriptions shifted to "an assault, a riot, an insurrection, domestic terrorism or even a coup attempt".[515] It was variably observed that the media outlets were settling on the terms "riot" and "insurrection".[515][516] According to NPR, "By definition, 'insurrection,' and its derivative, 'insurgency,' are accurate. 'Riot' and 'mob' are equally correct. While these words are not interchangeable, they are all suitable when describing Jan. 6."[517] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d'état."[518] The New York Times assessed the event as having brought the United States "hours away from a full-blown constitutional crisis".[519] Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College, and author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" and "sedition" but not a coup because Trump did not order the military "to seize power on his behalf".[520][521] The Coup D'état Project of the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois, which tracks coups and coup attempts globally, classified the attack as an "attempted dissident coup", defined as an unsuccessful coup attempt "initiated by a small group of discontents" such as "ex-military leaders, religious leaders, former government leaders, members of a legislature/parliament, and civilians [but not police or the military]". The Cline Center said the "organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition" by displacing Congress met this definition.[522][523] Some political scientists identified the attack as an attempted self-coup, in which the head of government attempts to strong-arm the other branches of government to entrench power.[524] Academic Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump's National Security Council, described the attack, and Trump's actions in the months leading up to it, as an attempted self-coup.[525] The FBI classified the attack as domestic terrorism,[526][527] and the Congressional Research Service also concluded that the attack appeared to meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism.[528][529] Republican senator Ted Cruz characterized it as terrorism at least eighteen times over the ensuing year, though he was among the Senate Republicans who blocked a bipartisan January 6 commission to investigate it.[530][531] Trump's attempts to overturn the election were described by federal judge David Carter as "a coup in search of a legal theory".[513]

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by pg on 10/19/22 at 15:00:16 Please get some help for you never ending hard-on for Trump...... WM, I was thinking the same thing regarding the billion dollar suit. On a lighter note, do you see the irony with the title of the thread? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icbAsFpVW7E[/media] Best regards,

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Eegore on 10/19/22 at 18:56:32 I guess after the Alex Jones lawsuit, the doors are open and you can sue anybody by just saying they hurt your feelings.  I think the Alex Jones lawsuit was more than just hurt feelings.  They had every right to sue once he started claiming they were crisis actors and people started showing up at their homes etc.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/22 at 05:40:26 594F58455D48455E2A0 wrote: A week following the attack, journalists were searching for an appropriate word to describe the event.[514] According to the Associated Press, U.S. media outlets first described the developments on January 6 as "a rally or protest", but as the events of the day escalated and further reporting and images emerged, the descriptions shifted to "an assault, a riot, an insurrection, domestic terrorism or even a coup attempt".[515] It was variably observed that the media outlets were settling on the terms "riot" and "insurrection".[515][516] According to NPR, "By definition, 'insurrection,' and its derivative, 'insurgency,' are accurate. 'Riot' and 'mob' are equally correct. While these words are not interchangeable, they are all suitable when describing Jan. 6."[517] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d'état."[518] The New York Times assessed the event as having brought the United States "hours away from a full-blown constitutional crisis".[519] Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College, and author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" and "sedition" but not a coup because Trump did not order the military "to seize power on his behalf".[520][521] The Coup D'état Project of the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois, which tracks coups and coup attempts globally, classified the attack as an "attempted dissident coup", defined as an unsuccessful coup attempt "initiated by a small group of discontents" such as "ex-military leaders, religious leaders, former government leaders, members of a legislature/parliament, and civilians [but not police or the military]". The Cline Center said the "organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition" by displacing Congress met this definition.[522][523] Some political scientists identified the attack as an attempted self-coup, in which the head of government attempts to strong-arm the other branches of government to entrench power.[524] Academic Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump's National Security Council, described the attack, and Trump's actions in the months leading up to it, as an attempted self-coup.[525] The FBI classified the attack as domestic terrorism,[526][527] and the Congressional Research Service also concluded that the attack appeared to meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism.[528][529] Republican senator Ted Cruz characterized it as terrorism at least eighteen times over the ensuing year, though he was among the Senate Republicans who blocked a bipartisan January 6 commission to investigate it.[530][531] Trump's attempts to overturn the election were described by federal judge David Carter as "a coup in search of a legal theory".[513] So what you’re saying is foxes gathered in the back of the henhouse and agreed on definitions…. And “ hours away from a full blown constitutional crisis“ ? How f’ing ridiculous is a statement like that? I’m seriously supposed to respect and consider listening to organizations who say $hit like that? What the F do you think was going to happen? Do you think if the dude in the horn hat sat in the chair at the front of the Senate chambers and said “I control the military now”, all the generals were just gonna say “OK well he’s sitting in the chair so we gotta do what he says.” Seriously, nothing was going to happen. Nothing. We should’ve treated everything just like they do with antifa and BLM riots which is to just back away and once they’re finally done taking selfies and peeing on Pelosi’s desk, they’d leave we’d go in and clean up the mess. Remember the George Floyd riots? I know it’s hard to remember because there were so many of them but when they tried to break into the White House? In that case the line did not back away and invite protesters in. they held the line despite numerous officers being injured. Oh wait, we can’t talk about that. That wasn’t a planned in surrection even though there was stuff all over the Internet inviting peaceful protesters to meet at the White House. But NPR didn’t struggle with definitions about that, they just kept referring to it as a mostly peaceful protest. It wasn’t a planned insurrection against Trump in the White House. Jan 6 was a protest that got out of control, perhaps encouraged a little bit by FBI plants, and perhaps even a purposely neglected security force hoping that this would turn into what we saw all summer after George Floyd. But these fair and balanced media giants sniffed out an opportunity to take advantage of Trump’s stupidity and kill off the GOP and Trump forever because they couldn’t do it otherwise. When the GOP takes over the house and senate in November or when the first session comes in January, there will be massive protest in Washington, like there was on Trump’s inauguration day. Again that wasn’t an insurrection was it? There were leaders who put out a call to action there were plans etc. but it wasn’t an insurrection was it? But when the GOP takes over, you won’t call the riots an insurrection, you’ll call them a mostly peaceful protest. And if the violence gets way out of control, you’ll start saying this was necessary to protect the republic against evil the GOP. NPR, and the New York Times will struggle to come up with any word besides insurrection to describe the riots. Watch this unfold in Nov and Jan. But we won’t read the word insurrection from the corporate news and entertainment culture. They’ll unite and protect their own. To paraphrase lyrics from a song in Hamilton, “it must be nice, it must be nice, to have Pravda on your side”.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/22 at 05:50:06 7F5F5D55485F3A0 wrote: I guess after the Alex Jones lawsuit, the doors are open and you can sue anybody by just saying they hurt your feelings.  I think the Alex Jones lawsuit was more than just hurt feelings.  They had every right to sue once he started claiming they were crisis actors and people started showing up at their homes etc. Really? Cause I read some truly awful stuff written about Amy Barrett and protesters to this day terrorized her house. Can she sue and win millions? The bakers who cited religious convictions for refusing to bake cakes have been terrorized for years, can they sue The NY Times? Why is Alex Jones guilty but Palin’s suit against NY Times thrown out? They wrote she was responsible for that congresswoman getting shot and idiots believed it and hounded her repeatedly. Where’s her justice?

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Serowbot on 10/20/22 at 06:46:47 If Palin had taken that bullet, it wouldn't have had much effect

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Eegore on 10/20/22 at 07:39:00 The bakers who cited religious convictions for refusing to bake cakes have been terrorized for years, can they sue The NY Times?  No because the NY Times did not present false information.  They have to act with actual malice, not report an event accurately that makes people mad.  If the NY times inaccurately makes a single statement about you - that you address with them, and they correct it - you don't have grounds to sue.  If the NY Times repeatedly makes inaccurate statements about you then you do have grounds to sue.   Why is Alex Jones guilty but Palin’s suit against NY Times thrown out?  They aren't even close when it comes to presented evidence, which is what courts use, actual evidence.  The ruling against Palin is because the NY Times made one statement and then corrected it.  There is no evidence that the NY Times continued their narrative recklessly, but instead it shows they provided a correction.  One incorrect report is not equal to years of incorrect reporting.  Basically the ruling says James Bennet, had not acted with the level of recklessness and ill intent required to meet the constitutional burden for public figures who claim defamation.  Palin has to prove that the NY Times acted with “actual malice” in presenting false information.  This means they knew it was false, or had reckless, and repeated disregard.  Alex Jones on the other hand had a multitude of evidence presented in court that worked against him.  Once he started making claims they were paid actors and he continued this narrative for years, he opened the door for mounting evidence against him in the court.    Protestors/harassment isn't the whole issue, it is the result of repeated and known inaccurate statements, or the result of one inaccurate statement that was corrected.  One inaccurate statement isn't illegal, but multiple known statements are.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/22 at 08:41:22 382E39243C29243F4B0 wrote: If Palin had taken that bullet, it wouldn't have had much effect What?

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/22 at 08:45:15 0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote: The bakers who cited religious convictions for refusing to bake cakes have been terrorized for years, can they sue The NY Times?  No because the NY Times did not present false information.  They have to act with actual malice, not report an event accurately that makes people mad.  If the NY times inaccurately makes a single statement about you - that you address with them, and they correct it - you don't have grounds to sue.  If the NY Times repeatedly makes inaccurate statements about you then you do have grounds to sue.   Why is Alex Jones guilty but Palin’s suit against NY Times thrown out?  They aren't even close when it comes to presented evidence, which is what courts use, actual evidence.  The ruling against Palin is because the NY Times made one statement and then corrected it.  There is no evidence that the NY Times continued their narrative recklessly, but instead it shows they provided a correction.  One incorrect report is not equal to years of incorrect reporting.  Basically the ruling says James Bennet, had not acted with the level of recklessness and ill intent required to meet the constitutional burden for public figures who claim defamation.  Palin has to prove that the NY Times acted with “actual malice” in presenting false information.  This means they knew it was false, or had reckless, and repeated disregard.  Alex Jones on the other hand had a multitude of evidence presented in court that worked against him.  Once he started making claims they were paid actors and he continued this narrative for years, he opened the door for mounting evidence against him in the court.    Protestors/harassment isn't the whole issue, it is the result of repeated and known inaccurate statements, or the result of one inaccurate statement that was corrected.  One inaccurate statement isn't illegal, but multiple known statements are.   The NY Times absolutely printed that out of malice. They hate Palin and saw an opportunity to pile on. Just because it couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it’s not true. I think the Alex Jones case sets a bad precedent and I can’t imagine it would stand up to any appealed as it goes further up the line.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Eegore on 10/20/22 at 09:05:10 Just because it couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it’s not true.  Ok but you asked why Alex jones was tried and Palin wasn't.  There was not enough evidence available.  Opinions aren't evidence so they need to find documentation that the NY Times acted with malice.  Maybe if they had texts, emails, videos and witness statements of staff laughing about how it's not true but to do it anyway then there would be enough evidence.  They had all that in regards to Alex jones, so there was enough evidence in his case to sue. In the cake case there is zero evidence of malice and the reporting was accurate.  So they have zero grounds to sue according to current US law, even if they are protested or threatened.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/22 at 10:39:21 Everyone knows The NY Times acted with malice. I’ve been involved in legal proceedings I understand the process. I was venting. The Jones case will get tossed in appeal. Again, I’ve never listened to Jones a day in my life. I recognize his face but if I heard his voice behind me I would know who it was. I don’t particularly care about him and it was idiotic to say what he said about that. He was wrong. But…..I read 1 million articles about how I needed to take the vaccine because it would protect others and that I was an awful person for not doing it, but as we know now, none of that was true. It didn’t prevent infection in others. It was completely fabricated and made up and repeated by corporate news. Let’s sue them.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by Eegore on 10/20/22 at 11:01:00 "It didn’t prevent infection in others. It was completely fabricated and made up and repeated by corporate news. Let’s sue them."  You would have to prove the "news" is acting with malice and stating, not "quoting" repeatedly something they know to be untrue, and also have damages.  The "news" repeating inaccurate vaccine information would not qualify as libel or defamation since it is not about you specifically.  You would not have grounds to sue.  But if the "news" had emails, texts, videos, staff and witnesses laughing about how the vaccine does not stop the spread of the vaccine, like they did with Alex Jones, then you might have grounds to sue, but not for personal damages at this time.  But you need that level of evidence, not just a source saying something that is wrong.  That's not enough.

Title: Re: I ain't saying she is a gold digger Post by MnSpring on 10/20/22 at 11:51:37 1030323A2730550 wrote: "... if the "news" had emails, texts, videos, staff and witnesses laughing about how the vaccine does not stop the spread of the vaccine,  ..." The 'news' most likely did not have that information early on.         YET, they most certainly did later. YET, continued to lie, because they were, TOLD TO. Good luck getting the government to say; 'that was wrong'. Oh WAIT, If you paint your skin, say your ancestors were slaves,   and you other ancestors gave corn to the Pilgrims. Well than, Yes !

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.