Covington Catholic - MAGA DC Incident

[CowboyFred 1151]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Speaking of orgs that don't let pandering sexual offenders into their agenda, what time does Bill Clinton speak at the DNC ?  You know Bill Clinton the guy who probably raped at least one women,  sexually assaulted a few others, went to pedo island multiple times with J. Epstein, had numerous affairs, one with a staffer in the oral office.  

Good thing the DNC has its shit together, and values women rights, and doesn't let people who abuse women on the podium to speak... Yep the great, and non-hypocritical DNC....

Yeah that kid (18 might be legally adult, but I think we all know they're HS dumb asses, just ask Kamala) is such a piece of shit.....  

Carry on with the hypocrisy...

lol calmer than you are bro...

"wHo PrObAbLy RaPeD At LeAsT oNe WoMeN..." (it is womAN, you fucking douchecanoe)..."  The Clinton smack talk always cracks me up when don looks like he straight up has sex with his daughter or at least has fantasized about it.  

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

lol calmer than you are bro...

"wHo PrObAbLy RaPeD At LeAsT oNe WoMeN..." (it is womAN, you fucking douchecanoe)..."  The Clinton smack talk always cracks me up when don looks like he straight up has sex with his daughter or at least has fantasized about it.  

Yeah, you seem calm.

[wildcat09 29376]

Onboard’s obsession with the Clintons is the type of thing that would’ve gotten someone committed to a mental institution before most of them got shut down.

[Hank Kingsley 21032]

Onboard lives in a world where strong values/morals are only required for the opposition party. 

Republicans can do whatever the fuck they want, because who gives a shit. They don't believe in anything and are hopeless. But liberals/leftists? For shame. There are actual expectations concerning their behavior.

How fucking convenient. 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[Nice Guy Eddie 13521]

On 7/27/2020 at 12:45 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Query:  Was Sandmann a trumpkin dickhole before this all started or did it push him that way?  I am aware that he was wearing a MAGA hat, but I'm not sure that means much on a teen.

Also, while I see that Wood is representing a QAnon'er, I don't see anything reliable that indicates that he is a QAnon'er.

This is a pretty good analysis of it that puts it more toward a nuisance settlement.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholic-s-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/ar-BB17ff1a

Referring to the "Respectable Lawyer" tweets, which adds some Kentucky defamation law spin.

It makes no sense that the Washington Post or CNN would pay him millions. I don't even understand how Cnn/Washington Post did anything wrong. I believe they accused him of disrespecting some minority march going on. Wearing a MAGA hat is disrespectful to many people. When you're in public, you have zero expectation of privacy. And regardless of any official CNN/WashPo commentator saying he was being disrespectful, any viewer makes that connection based on his hat and smirk on his face. He was barely containing a laugh.

Now I agree 100% that private individuals went too far in threatening him online but that wasn't CNN or the Washington Post's fault.  If I was on a jury and had the ability, I would hold him accountable for paying the washington post's legal bills.

For society as a whole, we are absolutely guilty of jumping to conclusions based on little context or desire to discover the full truth. I don't know how you hold 400m people financially accountable for that.

[wildcat09 29376]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It makes no sense that the Washington Post or CNN would pay him millions. I don't even understand how Cnn/Washington Post did anything wrong. I believe they accused him of disrespecting some minority march going on. Wearing a MAGA hat is disrespectful to many people. When you're in public, you have zero expectation of privacy. And regardless of any official CNN/WashPo commentator saying he was being disrespectful, any viewer makes that connection based on his hat and smirk on his face. He was barely containing a laugh.

Now I agree 100% that private individuals went too far in threatening him online but that wasn't CNN or the Washington Post's fault.  If I was on a jury and had the ability, I would hold him accountable for paying the washington post's legal bills.

For society as a whole, we are absolutely guilty of jumping to conclusions based on little context or desire to discover the full truth. I don't know how you hold 400m people financially accountable for that.

Defamation isn't a privacy issue and he wasn't a public figure, so the standard to prove defamation is lower than it would be for a public figure. Still, there's pretty much no way he would've won and @Bateshorn is probably correct that he accepted a lowball settlement offer that WaPo's insurers probably offer to anyone with a claim that can get past summary judgment to just go away.

[hobbes2702 13054]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Onboard’s obsession with the Clintons is the type of thing that would’ve gotten someone committed to a mental institution before most of them got shut down.

 

30 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Onboard lives in a world where strong values/morals are only required for the opposition party. 

Republicans can do whatever the fuck they want, because who gives a shit. They don't believe in anything and are hopeless. But liberals/leftists? For shame. There are actual expectations concerning their behavior.

How fucking convenient. 

 

 

@Onboard 2.0 is a mental midget. It’s that simple really.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

 

@Onboard 2.0 is a mental midget. It’s that simple really.

Oh noes personal attacks by someone I've never met in person.  Yes yes ignore the hypocrisy ifs what you democrats claim all republicans do as Bill Clinton speaks to the party faithful as one of your  spokesmen .

love it double standards at their finest or worst.

[hobbes2702 13054]

Oh noes lectures about hypocrisy from a trump voter. Honestly man there truly is something weird with your Clinton’s thing. You should legitimately talk to someone about why it is that you cannot view morally repugnant members of your team in the same light you view morally repugnant members of the other. It’s almost like you’re... hypocritical.

@Onboard 2.0

Edited August 18, 2020 by hobbes2702

[wildcat09 29376]

Per Onboard's reasoning, John Kasich is now a Dem spokesman.

Edited August 18, 2020 by wildcat09

[hayden_horn 11365]

28 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Oh noes lectures about hypocrisy from a trump voter. Honestly man there truly is something weird with your Clinton’s thing. You should legitimately talk to someone about why it is that you cannot view morally repugnant members of your team in the same light you view morally repugnant members of the other. It’s almost like you’re... hypocritical.

@Onboard 2.0

if onboard didn't go back to the old site, i'd basically just assume that he was fchorn.

[hobbes2702 13054]

13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if onboard didn't go back to the old site, i'd basically just assume that he was fchorn.

I disagree. FCHorn was intentionally obtuse. @Onboard 2.0 is just obtuse

[elfenix 34331]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that he's 18, I suppose the settlement authority was his alone as is the decision to become a right-wing shill.  Also, the timing of the settlement with his 18th birthday may be significant.

i thought it was an important point when the settlement was announced.  "hey i'm suddenly allowed to decide for myself and oh btw i now have a lot of money!"  it doesn't necessarily point to a disagreement in legal strategy between him and his parents, but it sure seems to shade that way. 

[Rougarou 594]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Nick Sandmann is a piece of crap. So is Bill Clinton.

This is very easy.

So is Nathan Phillips. Saying all three of these people are people we should actively avoid our children growing up like and to be should be the single-most agreed upon thing all of us differing folks can agree upon. It's like agreeing ice cream is good or something.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

i thought it was an important point when the settlement was announced.  "hey i'm suddenly allowed to decide for myself and oh btw i now have a lot of money!"  it doesn't necessarily point to a disagreement in legal strategy between him and his parents, but it sure seems to shade that way. 

Yeah, I'm not sure how much or what significance to attach to the birthday, but there's probably something.  A smaller amount may seem like more to him, and patience usually isn't a teen's strongest attribute.

But, given that he filed as a minor via his parents as "next friends," I am reasonably sure that they were highly involved in the decision.

[elfenix 34331]

could be the just wanted to wait until he's 18 so he can execute the docs himself.  i don't think i'd sit on an acceptable settlement for 6 months, but a few weeks is doable. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The shitheel probably wanted the settlement amount confidential because it’s not all that much money and would therefore be embarrassing and hurt his future earning ability as a right wing victim catering to right wing dipshits like onboard. So they waited until he was 18 to make sure the confidentiality stuck and wouldn’t need court approval. 

[Satchel 6948]

I’ll ask again. What are these Catholic schools teaching in their Religion classes nowadays? 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/03/17/louisiana-catholic-school-student-charged-hate-crime-whipping-cotton/7074216001/

HOUMA, La. — A 15-year-old ninth-grader was arrested and charged with a hate crime this week in connection with a racist bullying incident  at a Catholic high school in Louisiana, authorities said. 

The student at Vandebilt Catholic High in Houma was charged with simple battery and hate crime and was booked into the Terrebonne Parish juvenile detention center, Sheriff Tim Soignet said in a news release. 

A video of the incident surfaced on social media March 9 showing a white male student throwing cotton at a Black male student who is seated in the cafeteria. The white student then whips the Black student with what appears to be a small belt.

 

[Bullneck 19201]

[mdmost 43030]

An amazingly punchable face. 

[Bullneck 19201]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

An amazingly punchable face. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21212]

To be fair, I'd enjoy punching that little fuck in the face. 

[texasdago 7577]

How do we know that's not Ted Cruz's long lost son?

Edited March 25 by texasdago

[Pescado_Rojo 19428]

21 minutes ago, texasdago said:

How do we know that's not Ted Cruz's long lost son?

You think more than one woman has had sex with Ted Cruz? 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

38 minutes ago, mdmost said:

An amazingly punchable face. 

 

wearing a MAGAT hat takes the punchableness to another level

[texasdago 7577]

5 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You think more than one woman has had sex with Ted Cruz? 

Fair point.  Not sure his own wife has.

[Dnaguy 12045]

28 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You think more than one woman has had sex with Ted Cruz? 

Yes.

But not consensually 

[Underdog 28767]

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You think more than one woman has had sex with Ted Cruz? 

None that were conscious at the time. 

[texasdago 7577]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

Yes.

But not consensually 

[Dnaguy 12045]

2 hours ago, texasdago said:

Yes.

But not transactionally.

[Blotto 23568]

8 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You think more than one woman has had sex with Ted Cruz? 

You could have set the line at .5 and I'm still taking the under. 

[CTC2 2798]

3 minutes ago, Blotto said:

You could have set the line at .5 and I'm still taking the under. 

Someone fairly credible recently told me that apparently he pulls a lot of MAGA ass. Women like you see in those Mar-a-lago pics. 

[Blotto 23568]

7 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

Someone fairly credible recently told me that apparently he pulls a lot of MAGA ass. Women like you see in those Mar-a-lago pics. 

lulz. this was the first  google image suggestion. Get ya some, Ted.....I guess. 

 

[Genco 3041]

9 minutes ago, Blotto said:

lulz. this was the first  google image suggestion. Get ya some, Ted.....I guess. 

 

3, 1, 2, 4

[elfenix 34331]

1 hour ago, Genco said:

3, 1, 2, 4

[bolverk 29708]

1 hour ago, Genco said:

3, 1, 2, 4

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21920]

2 hours ago, CTC2 said:

Someone fairly credible recently told me that apparently he pulls a lot of MAGA ass. Women like you see in those Mar-a-lago pics. 

 

[Anastasis 23481]

2 hours ago, Blotto said:

lulz. this was the first  google image suggestion. Get ya some, Ted.....I guess. 

 

[Brisketexan 105274]

10 hours ago, Genco said:

3, 1, 2, 4

Respek for having the guts to do what needed to be done.

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:16 PM, Genco said:

3, 1, 2, 4

1,3,2,4

 

[Dahobbs 17654]

On 3/25/2024 at 1:29 PM, BeardIP said:

What does that article state are "sensory impressions"? That's a new one for me...

Here, let me help you:

from the appealed opinion (https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0180p-06.pdf)

Quote

The opinion-versus-fact inquiry thus typically involves two steps under Kentucky law.  First, the court determines whether a statement is fact or opinion.  If the statement is factual, the analysis ends there; the statement is considered capable of defamatory meaning.  But if the statement is one of opinion, the court then determines whether that opinion is based on undisclosed defamatory facts.  If so, the statement is capable of defamatory meaning; if not, it is protected opinion.  Here, the district court held that the blocking statements “did not imply the existence of any nondisclosed defamatory facts,” and Sandmann does not challenge that aspect of its holding.  So, if the blocking statements are opinion, they are protected by the Constitution and by Kentucky law.  

The way a statement is presented or worded affects the ultimate legal determination of whether it is a fact or opinion.  For example, “loose” or “figurative” language can “negate the impression” that the speaker was “seriously maintaining” an assertion of fact.  Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21.  So can “the general tenor” of an article.  Id.  Kentucky courts have found statements to be opinion where those statements were couched in qualifying terms, see Williams v. Blackwell, 487 S.W.3d 451, 453, 455-56 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016); sufficiently subjective, see Cromity, 494 S.W.3d at 503-04; or clearly intended to be opinion when “evident from the totality” of their context, see Seaman v. Musselman, No. 2002-CA-001269-MR, 2003 WL 21512489, at *4 (Ky. Ct. App. July 3, 2003).  The inquiry is setting-specific: that a statement may be capable of objective verification in some contexts does not make it an objectively S verifiable fact in every context.  Contrary to Sandmann’s claim, there is no bright-line rule that statements based on sensory perceptions are necessarily factual. 

From Sandmann's petition to the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-822/298902/20240126152554425_01.44690 pdf Huber br.pdf)

Quote

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED  1. Do statements conveying observed sensory impressions in factual, descriptive terms constitute protected “opinion” under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?  

2. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit effectively eliminate the distinction between fact and opinion articulated in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)?

 

Basically, Sandmann was looking to create a bright line rule. And the Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, declined to take him up on it. 

Edited March 27 by Dahobbs

[TeeDubya 3362]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:16 PM, Genco said:

3, 1, 2, 4

Are we declaring the age of their newest body parts, or what?
Doesn't look like there's any factory-original parts on any of those well-worn chassis.

Edited March 27 by TeeDubya