Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

(02-08-2019 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The current focused and "means tested" programs could then be farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis. If we also did Bismarck health care, then the states would save way more from not having to fund Medicaid than it would cost to fund those programs, particularly considering that the UBI is going to price most people out of qualifying for them.

Bismark Health Care makes the NYTimes: A Better Path to Healthcare

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

I don't care what they find on Nick's emails, the MSM was reporting on the incident of him standing in front of a guy beating a drum and smiling. It's not like they knew his email history when they twisted the facts.

Would it be better if Nick was beating the drum and Nathan was smiling at him?

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

Or how about the reporting from Berkeley residents about how common it is to have any wearer of a MAGA hat who are seemingly the objects of confrontation?

Funny that. You very much seem to overlook that lil' ol' aspect there.....

Seems to me there are a metric ton more people wearing MAGA hats who are the *actual* object of confrontation than vice versa. Yeah, blame the kids wearing the MAGA hats though for *that* horrific behavior. Since, wearing a MAGA hat and smirking is obvious confrontation that needs to addressed.

(02-22-2019 01:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

You have friends in DC who report to you?

I think it has always been common for visitors to DC to wear clothing that shows their political attitudes. It has always been common for people to defend their positions to those who disagree. Personally, I would not walk up to somebody wearing an "Impeach Trump" tee shirt to engage in civil debate and expect them to back off. I would think it rather more likely that I would be backed into a corner and called a racist - at best. Maybe they would come scream at me in the restaurant. No itch for confrontation there.

(02-22-2019 01:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 01:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?


The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:



I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

You have friends in DC who report to you?

I think it has always been common for visitors to DC to wear clothing that shows their political attitudes. It has always been common for people to defend their positions to those who disagree. Personally, I would not walk up to somebody wearing an "Impeach Trump" tee shirt to engage in civil debate and expect them to back off. I would think it rather more likely that I would be backed into a corner and called a racist - at best. Maybe they would come scream at me in the restaurant. No itch for confrontation there.

DC friends commenting on twitter/Facebook. Not so much giving me personal weekly briefings.

I agree with your lack of interest in public confrontation with randos.

(02-22-2019 01:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 01:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?


The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:



I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

You have friends in DC who report to you?

I think it has always been common for visitors to DC to wear clothing that shows their political attitudes. It has always been common for people to defend their positions to those who disagree. Personally, I would not walk up to somebody wearing an "Impeach Trump" tee shirt to engage in civil debate and expect them to back off. I would think it rather more likely that I would be backed into a corner and called a racist - at best. Maybe they would come scream at me in the restaurant. No itch for confrontation there.

DC friends commenting on twitter/Facebook. Not so much giving me personal weekly briefings.

I agree with your lack of interest in public confrontation with randos.

(02-22-2019 01:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

FWIW I believe the kid is 16.

And yeah, Bill Maher is pretty gross.

Who knows if he does or not. You seemingly appear predisposed that way, since you seem fairly adept at painting with that "MAGA Hats == itching for a confrontation" brush that seems the raison d'etre that is so prevalent these days.

It's not just about MAGA hats (but that's part of it TBH)... it's the reporting from DC residents about how common it is these days to see visiting packs of teenagers in MAGA hats who roam the Washington Mall and are seemingly itching for confrontation.

I don't know why it seems to be a surprise that maybe, a group of high school age boys were acting a fool in public and were verbally harassing people. I remember high school and how stupid large groups of guys could get because they didn't think what they/we were doing was harassment.

This video doesn't get posted as much, but these kids were acting a fool, hollering at strangers as they walked by:

https://twitter.com/roflinds/status/1087...g-woman%2F

Seems like they were trying to be provocative and confrontational for fun - not exactly an unheard of thing for high school boys - but not something anyone should defend.