Democrat/RINO lawyers are an insane clownshow at this point. They can do their crazy gerrymander for the 2028 election if they want to follow thier own state's rules, but they didn't follow their own procedural laws to do it in time for 2026. There is no Federal issue for the US Supreme Court to rule on here. Morons.
Democrat/RINO lawyers are an insane clownshow at this point. They can do their crazy gerrymander for the 2028 election if they want to follow their own state's rules, but they didn't follow their own procedural laws to do it in time for 2026. There is no Federal issue for the US Supreme Court to rule on here. Morons.
To paraphrase the AP: 'It's not lying when WE do it."
Zachary Young v. The Associated Press
In a hearing for the defamation case of Zachary Young v. The Associated Press on Tuesday, the AP’s lawyer argued to a panel of three judges for Florida’s First District Court of Appeal that the news organization’s own stylebook didn’t matter when determining the definition of a key word in their allegedly defamatory reporting. However, the AP Stylebook was the go-to standard for many newsrooms and students around the world. So...which is it? wellllllz, the AP is apparently has a lot in common with certain loquacious attorkneez:
The AP is actually arguing that it should not be held to its own defined standard. Amazingly, the news source for all of the approved language in the media is claiming that it ought not be subject to its own standard.
Young’s counsel said to the three-judge panel:
Quote: "So the article says, 'Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,' and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport — illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn't report it in a rhetorical sense."
The lawyer for the Associated Press attempted to say with a straight face that it somehow applies the term on an individual case basis, and it is not applicable to every story, somehow.
Quote: "Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case, moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case."
The AP is essentially arguing here that it does not apply the standards outlined in its own stylebook to each of its reports. In other words, then, it is not a standard. In her rebuttal to this testimony, Young’s attorney Lisa Glass exposed the farce of this argument.
Quote: “Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that. We provided 40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used ‘human smuggling,’ ‘people smuggling’ in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct.”
Yep, there's the way it's written, then theyz the way we doez things 'round heah.... typical.
(06-10-2026 04:10 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: To paraphrase the AP: 'It's not lying when WE do it."
Zachary Young v. The Associated Press
In a hearing for the defamation case of Zachary Young v. The Associated Press on Tuesday, the AP’s lawyer argued to a panel of three judges for Florida’s First District Court of Appeal that the news organization’s own stylebook didn’t matter when determining the definition of a key word in their allegedly defamatory reporting. However, the AP Stylebook was the go-to standard for many newsrooms and students around the world. So...which is it? wellllllz, the AP is apparently has a lot in common with certain loquacious attorkneez:
The AP is actually arguing that it should not be held to its own defined standard. Amazingly, the news source for all of the approved language in the media is claiming that it ought not be subject to its own standard.
Young’s counsel said to the three-judge panel:
Quote: "So the article says, 'Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,' and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport — illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn't report it in a rhetorical sense."
The lawyer for the Associated Press attempted to say with a straight face that it somehow applies the term on an individual case basis, and it is not applicable to every story, somehow.
Quote: "Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case, moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case."
The AP is essentially arguing here that it does not apply the standards outlined in its own stylebook to each of its reports. In other words, then, it is not a standard. In her rebuttal to this testimony, Young’s attorney Lisa Glass exposed the farce of this argument.
Quote: “Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that. We provided 40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used ‘human smuggling,’ ‘people smuggling’ in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct.”
Yep, there's the way it's written, then theyz the way we doez things 'round heah.... typical.
Quote:The Florida Supreme Court has REJECTED the challenge to the state’s redistricting plan and new map.
This assures that the recently enacted map will be in place for the 2026 election.
womp, womp.
And that along with the flight of normal people from excessive corruption in blue states will, and this is a key word, eventually lead to a healthier electorate for the U.S. as the census does its work. The question is do we have the time to allow that to play out? It's hopeful long term, but we need to be focused on maximizing advantages now, as Trump is trying to do, and eliminating the biggest propaganda source for the left, public education, by placing it back into the auspices of the counties and parishes.
Trump needs to start pushing to add 4 more justices on SCOTUS. Simply take the words of the low IQ retards on the left who publicly have been calling to expand the court and saying “there’s 13 district courts, there should be 13 justices”. Watch how fast said low IQ retards change their tune. Trump could even say it should be done in the spirit of bipartisanship. The left wants to expand, let’s go ahead and get it over with.
(06-11-2026 09:51 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote: Trump needs to start pushing to add 4 more justices on SCOTUS. Simply take the words of the low IQ retards on the left who publicly have been calling to expand the court and saying “there’s 13 district courts, there should be 13 justices”. Watch how fast said low IQ retards change their tune. Trump could even say it should be done in the spirit of bipartisanship. The left wants to expand, let’s go ahead and get it over with.
I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
Unathletic?
From last nights Congressional Baseball Game:
R's win 11-2.
Thank you, CP. The Dems get their butts kicked every year. The guys throw like girls and the girls run like guys.
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
Unathletic?
I think that he meant unhygienic.
Or perhaps maybe it was supposed to be unprincipled?
(06-11-2026 10:01 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: I agree 100%. But the Republicans don't have the spine. They aren't as evil as the Democrats. Thankfully the Democrats are stupid....and unathletic.
Unathletic?
I think that he meant unhygienic.
Or perhaps maybe it was supposed to be unprincipled?
Oh wait, I know, I know. Unendowed. That's got to be what he meant. Unendowed.
