Re: $83 million

Re: $83 million (1978671)	Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

< Previous Page

Page 2 of 7

Next Page >

(1978805)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by DaNd124* on Sat Jan 27 16:19:05 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 27 16:13:35 2024.* What's the good reason for being able to sue over the defamation but not the assault itself.
Post a New Response

(1978809)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 16:31:19 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jan 27 16:19:05 2024.* Huh? Statute of limitations on the assault. No applicable statute of limitations on the defamation - it just happened recently and in fact continued to take place in the last few months.
Post a New Response

(1978811)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by DaNd124* on Sat Jan 27 16:34:12 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 27 16:31:19 2024.* Ok that makes sense. Can Broadrick sue the random partisans online who say she's lying?
Post a New Response

(1978812)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 16:37:58 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jan 27 16:34:12 2024.* Of course. She has to prove damages and find someone who has more than a nickel to their name. Plenty of people who post here engage in libel but their protection is that the audience is too small to damage anyone's reputation.
Post a New Response

(1978814)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sat Jan 27 17:00:14 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 27 16:37:58 2024.* No, TNHIW
Post a New Response

(1978816)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by https://salaamallah.com/* on Sat Jan 27 17:05:17 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 27 16:09:35 2024.* NO YOU WRONG
Post a New Response

(1978819)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 17:44:56 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 27 17:00:14 2024.* Huh? I realize most of the libel here is against public figures, and so malice would need to be proved. But how could anyone show that their reputation had been damaged by that which is posted here? (OK, there are exceptions. If a transit worker gets libeled here, it might hurt their career. But in general I doubt a libelous post here would cause reputational damage.)
Post a New Response

(1978820)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Chicagomotorman* on Sat Jan 27 17:45:08 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by https://salaamallah.com/ on Sat Jan 27 17:05:17 2024.* Yes I am. I wear glasses
Post a New Response

(1978821)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by mtk52983* on Sat Jan 27 17:58:39 2024, in response to $83 million, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 26 18:38:35 2024.* Let's see when Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley, etc. pay
Post a New Response

(1978822)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sat Jan 27 18:02:34 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 27 17:44:56 2024.* You’re changing what you said before. Before you said the audience is too small. Publication to just one person is enough.
Post a New Response

(1978826)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim* on Sat Jan 27 18:16:57 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by https://salaamallah.com/ on Sat Jan 27 14:55:30 2024.* So a Black Man would gladly hand over the $83mil and not try every legal angle to reduce or even "get out" of paying?? Time to think here.
Post a New Response

(1978827)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 18:26:14 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 27 18:02:34 2024.* OK, I meant too small and (implicitly) insufficiently influential. Except for the exceptions, of course.
Post a New Response

(1978830)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by https://salaamallah.com/* on Sat Jan 27 19:01:21 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 27 17:45:08 2024.* WHEN
Post a New Response

(1978831)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sat Jan 27 19:01:21 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jan 27 18:16:57 2024.* PWNED!
Post a New Response

(1978833)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 19:22:24 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jan 27 17:58:39 2024.* The fact that Al Sharpton, Alex Jones, Rudy Giuliani, and others with extensive financial means have weaseled out of paying libel or slander judgments for long periods of time is quite irrelevant to the case of Trump.
Post a New Response

(1978834)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim* on Sat Jan 27 19:36:27 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 27 19:22:24 2024.* "have weaseled out of paying libel..." Is using existing laws and exercising your rights considered "weaseling"??
Post a New Response

(1978835)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jan 27 19:41:33 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jan 27 19:36:27 2024.* I consider it as such when the original defamation was as reckless and outrageous as it was in the three cases I listed.
Post a New Response

(1978838)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Orange Blossom Special* on Sat Jan 27 19:57:43 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jan 26 18:42:53 2024.* I hope Holts "Orgasmic excitement" isn't as vulgar as Lemons actual orgasms on CNN every new years.
Post a New Response

(1978839)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Orange Blossom Special* on Sat Jan 27 19:58:56 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jan 27 19:36:27 2024.* Yes. One law foryou and one for me. And I thougth SP was a hypocrit but I forgot how sick AIM can be.
Post a New Response

(1978840)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Orange Blossom Special* on Sat Jan 27 19:59:38 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by bingbong on Fri Jan 26 19:37:03 2024.* But UNRWA has been defunded once again. Trump won again, humanity won again. Cry me a river.
Post a New Response

(1978848)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Jeff Rosen* on Sat Jan 27 21:22:53 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 27 17:00:14 2024.* What the heck is "TNHIW"?
Post a New Response

(1978849)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sat Jan 27 21:23:26 2024, in response to $83 million, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 26 18:38:35 2024.* TDS. This shows how broken the legal system is.
Post a New Response

(1978852)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sat Jan 27 21:35:53 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by https://salaamallah.com/ on Sat Jan 27 14:55:30 2024.* What does him being white have to do with anything?
Post a New Response

(1978854)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sat Jan 27 22:21:15 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jan 27 21:23:26 2024.* No, it doesn’t. It shows that TFG isn’t immune from the consequences of his actions.
Post a New Response

(1978859)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sat Jan 27 22:39:51 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 27 22:21:15 2024.* He's being made an example of, once again. This just makes him a martyr to his base and some of the Normies.
Post a New Response

(1978863)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by 3-9* on Sat Jan 27 22:56:55 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 27 21:22:53 2024.* "That's Not How It Works". As opposed to THIW, "That's How It Works".
Post a New Response

(1978866)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by The Silence* on Sun Jan 28 00:07:23 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by DaNd124 on Sat Jan 27 16:34:12 2024.* She can sue anyone she wants, anyone can... The question would be if she'd be able to win. Because there is a fine line between defamation and opinion. "I think she's a liar" and "she's a liar" are, legally speaking, on two very different things. Hench why one of the most common words you hear on the news is "Allegedly."
Post a New Response

(1978867)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by The Silence* on Sun Jan 28 00:08:53 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 26 19:20:09 2024.* you predicted a man would be held accountable for his actions...?
Post a New Response

(1978868)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by The Silence* on Sun Jan 28 00:16:58 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jan 27 22:39:51 2024.* the only example being made of him, if at all, is "No one, absolutely no one, is above the law". If Biden went around speaking the say way about someone, contrary to popular belief for folks like you, Bill, the rest of us would want him treated the exact same way.
Post a New Response

(1978885)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jan 28 08:47:03 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by 3-9 on Sat Jan 27 22:56:55 2024.* Thanks.
Post a New Response

(1978886)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jan 28 08:48:58 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by The Silence on Sun Jan 28 00:07:23 2024.* No, TNHIW. The clerk’s office won’t stop the lawsuit from being filed, but patently frivolous lawsuits are not allowed.
Post a New Response

(1978890)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sun Jan 28 09:01:03 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by The Silence on Sun Jan 28 00:16:58 2024.* That's fine, HOWEVER, it's selectively enforced. Has Sharpton paid the millions he owes to the DA? Is anyone for that matter holding his feet to the fire for that?
Post a New Response

(1978910)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by chicagoMotorman* on Sun Jan 28 12:31:39 2024, in response to $83 million, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 26 18:38:35 2024.*
Post a New Response

(1978914)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 12:36:47 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sun Jan 28 12:31:39 2024.* Only one of the three convinced a jury with a preponderance of the evidence.
Post a New Response

(1978916)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by chicagoMotorman* on Sun Jan 28 12:37:41 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 28 12:36:47 2024.* Tainted jury.
Post a New Response

(1978917)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 12:44:38 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sun Jan 28 12:37:41 2024.* Propaganda.
Post a New Response

(1978919)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by chicagoMotorman* on Sun Jan 28 12:59:56 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 28 12:44:38 2024.* Do you honestly think you would be an objective juror?
Post a New Response

(1978920)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jan 28 13:07:54 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sun Jan 28 12:59:56 2024.* Irrelevant. He wasn’t picked to be a juror. If they did have a biased jury, that’s Alina Habba’s fault. When an incompetent cunt. My name is not AlM.
Post a New Response

(1978923)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Chicagomotorman* on Sun Jan 28 13:14:13 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 28 13:07:54 2024.* Ok, would you be objective?
Post a New Response

(1978927)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jan 28 13:22:57 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Chicagomotorman on Sun Jan 28 13:14:13 2024.* I doubt it.
Post a New Response

(1978934)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Chicagomotorman* on Sun Jan 28 13:55:59 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 28 13:22:57 2024.* Neither would I.
Post a New Response

(1978935)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sun Jan 28 13:56:27 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 28 12:36:47 2024.* Gee, I wonder why?...
Post a New Response

(1978936)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Sun Jan 28 14:00:28 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Jan 28 13:56:27 2024.* Because her case actually went to trial?
Post a New Response

(1978942)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 14:55:35 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sun Jan 28 12:59:56 2024.* Probably not. But I wasn't on the panel.
Post a New Response

(1978945)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 15:04:47 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Jan 28 13:56:27 2024.* Because Clinton and Biden never slandered or libeled their accusers and the statute of limitations had run out on all other charges.
Post a New Response

(1978948)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by DaNd124* on Sun Jan 28 15:12:17 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 28 15:04:47 2024.* Clinton settled with Jones for the full amount of her claim.
Post a New Response

(1978955)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 15:38:05 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by DaNd124 on Sun Jan 28 15:12:17 2024.* My mistake. My mind was on Juanita Broaddrick, who had been the Clinton topic earlier. Clinton also admitted to improper behavior with Jones.
Post a New Response

(1978975)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sun Jan 28 17:38:20 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 28 14:00:28 2024.* Because??....
Post a New Response

(1978976)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Sun Jan 28 17:39:33 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 28 15:04:47 2024.* It's a TDS-infused concerted effort to derail DJT from becoming POTUS in 2024
Post a New Response

(1978990)	view threaded
Re: $83 million
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jan 28 18:36:28 2024, in response to Re: $83 million, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Jan 28 17:38:20 2024.* Because Clinton and Biden never defamed their accusers. So there was no slander or libel to be claimed. If Trump had just issued a denial none of this would have amounted to anything.
Post a New Response

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
< Previous Page	Page 2 of 7	Next Page >

[ Return to the Message Index ]