|
Title: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 27, 2017, 05:00:15 pm This is over the Giffords shooting and the BS story that Palin had something to do with it.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/879826108941774848 Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: swake on June 27, 2017, 05:30:55 pm This is over the Giffords shooting and the BS story that Palin had something to do with it. https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/879826108941774848 Palin is clinging to her dying fame like she clings to her cheap beer and guns I see. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Hoss on June 27, 2017, 05:53:51 pm Palin is clinging to her dying fame like she clings to her cheap beer and guns I see. (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/xenoblade/images/9/92/He%27s_right_you_know.jpg) Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 28, 2017, 01:03:30 am Palin is clinging to her dying fame like she clings to her cheap beer and guns I see. Um. Palin was minding her own business and did nothing. Then when Scalise got shot the NYT dusted off this stupid charge against her. My gosh you truly are a stupid people. Not biased or misogynistic, just flat stupid. And since you brought up "clinging", I see your dingleberry has likewise shown his stupidity. Here's the editorial. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html Here's a source that contains a link to the lawsuit. My .02. Tough to prevail, but who knows what a "win" for Palin may be. But interesting nevertheless. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sarah-palin-sues-new-york-times-over-editorial-linking-her-n777421 Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2017, 08:56:15 am No connection - NYT got it wrong - no connection was ever shown between he post and the shooting. The guy was a whack job who was going this direction for a long, long, time.
Palin did say, "We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight..." With the crosshairs. That truly is incendiary. https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434 I'm thinking her BS and lies attacking Obamacare, about how her Down Syndrome baby would have to go before a "Death Panel"...well, really gotta wonder which is really worse? She shows the willingness and enthusiasm to stoop to using her handicapped baby as part of her scheme to perpetrate her lies on the American people. Just what she is.... At most, they cancel each other out. Edit; And yes, Wonkette is just as bad as Fake Fox News! Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Breadburner on June 28, 2017, 09:00:18 am Good for her...CNN is in the same boat.....
(https://i.imgur.com/UZXqrvs.png) Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Townsend on June 28, 2017, 11:20:28 am I'm sure whatever the outcome, we will all wake up the next day with better lives for us and the people we care about. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 28, 2017, 03:08:42 pm I'm sure whatever the outcome, we will all wake up the next day with better lives for us and the people we care about. Now your getting it. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Breadburner on June 28, 2017, 04:21:01 pm I'm sure whatever the outcome, we will all wake up the next day with better lives for us and the people we care about. Kinda like renaming the Washington Redskins.... Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: patric on June 28, 2017, 04:52:42 pm (https://i.imgur.com/UZXqrvs.png) All unnamed "sources" by a Trump publication. Didnt even have the guts to post a link. The maligned individual responded not with an $100M suit but by simply accepting CNN's apology: .@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on. Anthony Scaramucci Verified account @Scaramucci https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/878568965471186944 Far, far more class than Palin or her RWE supporters. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2017, 04:54:45 pm All unnamed "sources" by a Trump publication. Didnt even have the guts to post a link. The maligned individual responded not with an $100M suit but by simply accepting CNN's apology: That doesn't follow the script....so they can't let the truth just lay there without lying about it. That just isn't the Trump nor the RWRE way. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 28, 2017, 10:45:24 pm All unnamed "sources" by a Trump publication. Didnt even have the guts to post a link. The maligned individual responded not with an $100M suit but by simply accepting CNN's apology: .@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on. Anthony Scaramucci Verified account @Scaramucci https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/878568965471186944 Far, far more class than Palin or her RWE supporters. Don't recall the NYT apologizing. And Scaramucci was not accused of inciting the murder of numerous people and an attempted assassination. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2017, 08:12:41 am Don't recall the NYT apologizing. And Scaramucci was not accused of inciting the murder of numerous people and an attempted assassination. Oh, so now you are bringing in all the RWRE lies about the Clintons...?? Go figure... Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 29, 2017, 10:35:00 am Oh, so now you are bringing in all the RWRE lies about the Clintons...?? Go figure... What are you yammering about? ;D No idea where you got anything about the Clintons over what I said about scaramucci and his BS Russia ties claim and Palin being accused of inciting mass murder. Turn your "I must be offended over anything" off and think. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2017, 01:02:44 pm What are you yammering about? ;D No idea where you got anything about the Clintons over what I said about scaramucci and his BS Russia ties claim and Palin being accused of inciting mass murder. Turn your "I must be offended over anything" off and think. You were going on about lies about how Palin was falsely associated with the Gifford shooting... in a fashion that was not even remotely as direct an accusation as the decades of lies we have heard about how the Clintons killed or had killed dozens of people. If you are SO offended by a casual, loosely accusatory note about Palin, where is your indignation at the much greater injustice?? I know... selective outrage. Selective morality. I have the feeling you actually did understand the association, but once again, wanted to play obtuse so you could disseminate disingenuous nonsense. At least, I hope you are able to still make these connections at your age! Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 29, 2017, 03:34:21 pm You were going on about lies about how Palin was falsely associated with the Gifford shooting... in a fashion that was not even remotely as direct an accusation as the decades of lies we have heard about how the Clintons killed or had killed dozens of people. If you are SO offended by a casual, loosely accusatory note about Palin, where is your indignation at the much greater injustice?? I know... selective outrage. Selective morality. I have the feeling you actually did understand the association, but once again, wanted to play obtuse so you could disseminate disingenuous nonsense. At least, I hope you are able to still make these connections at your age! OMG you still talking? Just stop. And do not try to read anything into what I was stating. You are not that clever. I have no idea why you dragged the Clintons into a discussion about why one defamation case (Palin) was different from another (Scaramucci), or why one did not proceed and why the other did not. Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 30, 2017, 10:13:33 am OMG you still talking? Just stop. And do not try to read anything into what I was stating. You are not that clever. I have no idea why you dragged the Clintons into a discussion about why one defamation case (Palin) was different from another (Scaramucci), or why one did not proceed and why the other did not. Lol... pot meet kettle...kettle meet pot.... Fake Fox News Soundbite reply. You ought to get some new material... take a PBS plunge sometime! It is cool AND refreshing.... You do know. Just going for the obtuse. Unless you really DON'T know - and that possibility is just too horrifying to contemplate!! Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: guido911 on June 30, 2017, 10:49:55 am Lol... pot meet kettle...kettle meet pot.... Fake Fox News Soundbite reply. You ought to get some new material... take a PBS plunge sometime! It is cool AND refreshing.... You do know. Just going for the obtuse. Unless you really DON'T know - and that possibility is just too horrifying to contemplate!! Now Fox News gets in this conversation? What is the matter with you? Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Townsend on June 30, 2017, 11:05:55 am You guys are working this hard on Palin.
Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2017, 12:29:22 pm You guys are working this hard on Palin. "The Quitta from Wasilla"... Title: Re: Palin v. New York Times Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 02, 2017, 12:42:58 pm You guys are working this hard on Palin. Just trying to give him an even bigger case of "red monkey butt..." Since he never answers a question or ventures even one step beyond the Fake Fox News sound bite, it just seems appropriate.... |