placeholder

Hired? Frothing much? Fani Willis unseats 6-term Fulton DA Paul Howard By Christian Boone Updated Aug 12, 2020 https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/early-results-show-fulton-da-challenger-in-the-lead/X23G6PDMIFBVHJKYH6UVTQMQ54/

Now that you got busted on your misleading quote, I guess all you've got left is to resort to generalizations.

One of the common ways that countries engaged in hostilities distract from the gap between their objectives and actual outcomesis to focus on statistics that address enemy mortality, i.e. body counts, or the destruction of weaponry and related technology such as radar sites. So how effective has the bombing been so far? Has the flow of shipping resumed? Has the supply of radar technology to the Houthis been cut off? I would think that the sorry record of those predicting ithe imminent destruction of the Houthis ability to disrupt shipping might be more wary of soliciting predictions from others. My record so far, on the other hand, is pretty much impeccable on this issue. I think it's delusional to think that this mission can be successful without putting boots on the ground. Lots of boots. And that eventuality seems very unlikely.

You can see the kind of garbage dumps riclag gets his info from. One of Hunter's partners wrote "10% for the big guy?" As a question. Hunter noted to his partners this his father specifically said he wanted nothing to do with Hunter's business dealings. I think the words Hunter used was that his father gave "an emphatic NO"

What has this got to do with whether or not there's any incriminating evidence against Joe Biden? What did those whistleblowers offer as evidence that had anything to do with the presidents?

Yes what an amazing coincidence that the majority of justices don't agree with Sotomayor. Clearly nothing to do with the fact that all six of these justices were vetted and approved by the Federalist society. There's no way that their previous opinions on second amendment matters influence their nomination of the Court by Donald Trump.

Sometimes telling blatant falsehoods has consequences that result in real harm. If the consequences of telling a falsehood can be reasonably foreseen, then the victims of that harm can sue for damages.

You saved the worst for last:"his dad's involvement". The House Committee headed by James Comer tried its best to come up with something to support an impeachment bid. They failed and resorted to the face saving measure of a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. There is nothing in that much picked and pored over "Treasure trove" that has come close to incriminating Joe Biden for anything. As far as Joe Biden is concerned, the laptop was a dud. Do you believe in magic? Do you believe that repeating a forlorn hope over and over again will somehow turn it into reality? You've got nothing.

Does a person who falsely calls a food companies' products dangerously poisonous have to call for a boycott in order to be sued for defamation and damages? If a result can reasonably be expected, that's enough justification to sue for damages.

So for those 10 years that Jones refused to back down on his claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake, was the kind of thing a hero and martyr would engage in? You seem to believe that all speech is protected, no matter how heinous. That's not the case. The law recognizes that some speech causes real harms. The US actually has a far higher standard than most other nations when it comes to restrictions on free speech. Attacks on public figures face a very high bar to prove defamation thanks to the Warren Supreme Court. And much to the chagrin of entitled right wingers like Clarence Thomas. It also didn't help Jones' case that he repeatedly lied. For instance, your hero and martyr claimed in court that he had fully cooperated. That was a blatant lie. Doesn't seem like he was standing on principle there. Or when he tried to conceal his financial resources. You call that heroism?

The point is, in the view of the law, it was reasonably to be expected that his words would inflame his followers to resort to threats and violent measures. In the same way that it's reasonably expected if someone defamed a company's products, sales would decline as a consequence.

False, The congressional history shows that Congress well understood that it was banning any devices that could turn a regular gun into a machine gun. The right wingers on the Supreme Court repeatedly use the common sense measure as a way to interpret terminology. In this case, since that wouldn't work, they resorted to a highly technical explanation to come up with a desired result: "Congress banned machine guns almost a century ago through the National Firearms Act and, as Sotomayor pointed out, has since updated it to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”... “The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a ‘single function of the trigger’ means a reset of the trigger mechanism,” Sotomayor wrote. “Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court-bump-stocks-decision-textualism-hypocrisy.html

I find myself in the uncomfortable, probably unprecedented, position of basically agreeing with riclag. Willis is certainly arrogant and clearly feels entitled. To behave in such a self-serving fashion is never justified. But in a huge case like this, where so much attention is inevitably going to attract lots of attention and scrutiny, she really has no valid justification for hiring Nathan Wade. Not even the weak one of claiming that he was an experienced prosecutor. He wasn't. So stupid and self-indulgent.

I don't need a link. Defamation law is very clear on the subject. Malicious false speech is not protected by law. If someone lies about a product a company makes and that results in a company's loss of income, the person defaming is liable for damages. It's no defense to say that it's not their fault that consumers aren't purchasing the product. Interestingly enough, it's certain elements of the right wing in America that wants to make it easier to win a defamation lawsuit. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-easing-defamation-suits-by-politicians-like-trump

So, in your world, there is such a thing as lowlifes who are not immoral? Your ridiculous and nasty comment deserves nothing but ridicule.

The rules are there for a reason. Honorable people back up their claims.

From the landing page of the World News Forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." In other words, put up or... So far, you've got nothing.

Here was your question: "did he not say the twin towers would be hit by planes way before it happened?" If this video is all there is in the way of evidence, then the answer is clearly No. Alex Jones did not say that the twin towers would be hit by planes before it happened. Thanks for wasting slightly more than 8 minutes of my time.

Prove you wrong? What have you claimed to be true?

Hunter, being married, could not marry anyone. No, it was certainly not 100% irrelevant. evenkeel believes that it's immoral for a brother to have an intimate relationship with the widow of his brother. God clearly disagrees with that. He actually makes such marriage mandatory in at least one circumstance. And nowhere does the Big Guy prohibit it.

Now that you've asked the question, can you answer it with a link to al credible source? I'm guessing not.

Definitely this justifies the crude comments from Giuliani, Trump, et alii.

And thanks for jumping to invidious conclusions: "where did i write that comment. you literally made that all up. disgusting. i should report you for that but its better to let people like you onto your own."

Sorry. I when I tried to retrace the thread I quoted JohnG by mistake. It was not your quote. I apologize. I will report my mistake to the mods.

He's channeling?