Convington High victims sue CNN for OVER $250M + Wash Post for $250M + others

[Monster Hunter]

As much as people hate Trump, and trust me I do as well, but we gotta look at the big picture and that's we're handing the next presidential election over to whomever the Democrats have. Doesn't matter if the person is good or bad or even what policies they have, just that they aren't Trump. That's a dangerous way of thinking. We want the Democrats to find us a better choice than Hillary, not Trump. My cat is a better choice than Trump, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Mainstream media like CNN just push the idea that anything is better than Trump.

first thing i agree with you on, there is a major danger that if the dem's just throw up another career trash politician or something too radical hoping to get some as yet unknown demographic. there is the distinct threat that A. trump might win again and B. you get some one just as retarded that starts a cycle of picking a new president just to get rid of the old one, not on making any real progress as a country.

a bit like that period in roman history where the Praetorian Guard worked out they actually had the power being the swords around the emperor so they kept ousting emperors and installing puppets every few months to few years, at one point they even auctioned off the position of emperor to the highest bidder. you could get a similar situation only the people become the Praetorian's in that scenario.

[Rysthruun]

That's the claim, but people are having a difficult time actually proving it.

- - - Updated - - -



You made a claim about Fox and CNN, and I questioned the veracity. You still refuse to research a claim, and back up the narrative you already pushed. Let me know when the irony finally gets to you.

They are not having the government go in and arrest them, they want the government to go in and forcibly take hundreds of millions of dollars from them. I'd say that's punishment.

You spoke about publicly-available information, you brought it up. Yet, here you are, unwilling to find information that is publicly-available to back up your own narrative.

Now you are just calling for a double standard, demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Let me know when you can back up your claims about CNN and Fox News.

Truth is, neither of us are trial lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing. To me, I see a common sense series of connecting dots connected by what I presume will be the legal strategy of this kids attorney. If I were an attorney, that's exactly how I would handle running 80+ lawsuits, small first, big later. At the very least the smaller, much easier wins, are ez enough money and the growing threat of their testimony will either aid in the big fish or sweat them enough to settle on my terms. Proving it against CNN seems kinda tough as anything I search regarding Covington on CNN has been removed. Which is a pretty good indicator they are taking this seriously. Aside from CNN, you have a huge range of targets and the majority are not journalists but are celebrities or people of influence!

[Machismo]

1. You brought up Fox News. I responded to your claim about Fox News. I still do not understand why you thought bringing up Fox News and how they could be sued by Obama/Clinton is the same. And again, you clearly are just going to run around screaming 'liar liar' because you can't defend your positions.

2. It's called a lawsuit. It's a civil suit from what I understand. You're doing your best and failing spectacularly.

3. What is my narrative again? Because you seem to be the one so obsessed with Fox News and I really could care less other than to point out the obvious pivot. If the lose the suit that is the punishment. If they refuse to pay and then the government gets involved that is a totally separate matter.

4. If we were comparing people, privately, sure. We are not. It's not. You fail still in trying to equate the two.

5. Let me know when you are capable of defending our positions as this is cute and adorable, but not at all engaging.

Still done.

And you brought up Fox and CNN being organized differently. You made a claim about them, and when challenged, you couldn't back it up.

You still can't.

A civil suit still involves government intervention. It's still an attempt to use government to punish someone else. No amount of whining will change that.

Your narrative was that Fox and CNN were organized differently, and Fox Newsisn't set up as a news entity. You are basing that on what you heard, When asked for evidence.... nothing.

We're not done, you keep lying about that.

[Orbitus]

Yeah that octogenarian was just asking for it by the way he was dressed..... Dude you are the extreme left. Thinking some old guy wearing a hat and some nutter running people over are all the same. Absolute lunatic. Why do i get the impression you think people wearing a hat are enemy combatants.

Did I say that the 81 year old should be assaulted? Nope. Thanks for trying. I wasn't trying to equate terrorism of right wing to assaults of the left wing. That is right wingers' jobs. Because there have been people on this forum that actually have.

Want to try again? Or do you want to continue being wrong?

[Stormbreed]

Everyone knows the US is doing great with Trump as leader, it just sucks they hate to admit 50+% of the population was wrong.

[Machismo]

Truth is, neither of us are trial lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing. To me, I see a common sense series of connecting dots connected by what I presume will be the legal strategy of this kids attorney. If I were an attorney, that's exactly how I would handle running 80+ lawsuits, small first, big later. At the very least the smaller, much easier wins, are ez enough money and the growing threat of their testimony will either aid in the big fish or sweat them enough to settle on my terms. Proving it against CNN seems kinda tough as anything I search regarding Covington on CNN has been removed. Which is a pretty good indicator they are taking this seriously. Aside from CNN, you have a huge range of targets and the majority are not journalists but are celebrities or people of influence!

We are not lawyers, thats true. My argument comes from a place of support for free speech and equality under the law. It's rather unnerving to think of how expansive the fallout would be if this lawsuit succeeded.

I just searched CNN, and I found numerous stories on Covi ngton.

[Deadite]

Did I say that the 81 year old should be assaulted? Nope. Thanks for trying. I wasn't trying to equate terrorism of right wing to assaults of the left wing. That is right wingers' jobs. Because there have been people on this forum that actually have.

Want to try again? Or do you want to continue being wrong?

With all the whataboutism you never said you didn't think he should have been assaulted. Since you called him a moron for no reason i guess i just assumed you had no strong opinion on the matter. So you don't think it is ok to assult people wearing a hat you don't like then?

[Ashrynn]

And you brought up Fox and CNN being organized differently. You made a claim about them, and when challenged, you couldn't back it up.

You still can't.

A civil suit still involves government intervention. It's still an attempt to use government to punish someone else. No amount of whining will change that.

Your narrative was that Fox and CNN were organized differently, and Fox Newsisn't set up as a news entity. You are basing that on what you heard, When asked for evidence.... nothing.

We're not done, you keep lying about that.

1. The claim that I think Fox was labeled as an entertainment company? Ok. They are 100% a legitimate news organization. I retract my previous statement and will no longer run articles about Fox being an entertainment company. I also commit to stop bringing pundits on nig----Wait... Hold up Machismo. I'm being informed by my producers that I never actually had a show or a news company. And I apparently did not publish an article or even run a single tv segment. Apparently reporting the news is not the job I am paid for. And I did not profit from a lie about children.

2. Again, you brought up Fox News on an unrelated claim and tried to link it to this. That was you. Not me. You went on for pages saying I was the one bringing it up, I am not. That is again you. Fox is not related here.

3. No. And to be clear you said I wanted, or rather, people like me want the govt to go in and punish them. That is 100% a falsehood.

4. Hold up buddy. You brought up Fox News - I did not. Try again. What was my position? Do you need me to state it again?

You still haven't defended your positions in any meaningful way. I stated my position several times VERY clearly.

Still done.

-=-=-=-

[Machismo]

1. The claim that I think Fox was labeled as an entertainment company? Ok. They are 100% a legitimate news organization. I retract my previous statement and will no longer run articles about Fox being an entertainment company. I also commit to stop bringing pundits on nig----Wait... Hold up Machismo. I'm being informed by my producers that I never actually had a show or a news company. And I apparently did not publish an article or even run a single tv segment. Apparently reporting the news is not the job I am paid for. And I did not profit from a lie about children.

2. Again, you brought up Fox News on an unrelated claim and tried to link it to this. That was you. Not me. You went on for pages saying I was the one bringing it up, I am not. That is again you. Fox is not related here.

3. No. And to be clear you said I wanted, or rather, people like me want the govt to go in and punish them. That is 100% a falsehood.

4. Hold up buddy. You brought up Fox News - I did not. Try again. What was my position? Do you need me to state it again?

You still haven't defended your positions in any meaningful way. I stated my position several times VERY clearly.

Still done.

-=-=-=-

So, it's cool if you push unverified information, but not others... the hypocrisy is awesome.

And you are wrong, we're not done. You really should stop pushing false narratives.

See how easy it is to get carried away with a narrative without looking into things?

[Darththeo]

Their is also the important fact that the same twitter account they pulled the "cherry pick" from also had the full video in its commentary within 8 posts and yet they either


a.) Refused to air it

B.) acknowledge it

C.)chose to ignore it




D.)

Did they state they got the "cherry picked" video from that particular twitter account? Do you know they even saw it? Or are you just assuming?

[Monster Hunter]

Did I say that the 81 year old should be assaulted? Nope. Thanks for trying. I wasn't trying to equate terrorism of right wing to assaults of the left wing. That is right wingers' jobs. Because there have been people on this forum that actually have.

Want to try again? Or do you want to continue being wrong?

@Deadite.

why don't you two just agree that hitting people weather its with a car or a fist, though is not equal, is still both unacceptable from a "supposedly" civilized peoples. then move on.

[Orbitus]

With all the whataboutism you never said you didn't think he should have been assaulted. Since you called him a moron for no reason i guess i just assumed you had no strong opinion on the matter. So you don't think it is ok to assult people wearing a hat you don't like then?

No, that is what you said. You think I said the 81 year old racist moron deserved to get his ass beat for wearing the hat. And I said no such thing. Want to give it a 3rd try chief?

[Ashrynn]

So, it's cool if you push unverified information, but not othwrs... the hypocrisy is awesome.

And you are wrong, we're not done. You really should stop pushing false narratives.

Oh, sick burn. My fe-fes will never recover!

This last response says it all folks. You can't defend your positions you can only attack me. I've pointed out your positions and how you abandoned them, pivoted from point to point as quick as you could and this really was your best.

/clap

Guess we are done.

[Theodarzna]

Wait, I’m confused. You incorrectly said that they just went and got the bad video off of Twitter, an unreliable source. But now Twitter randos should have been consulted? And, again, if this was so available, why did exactly zero organizations report on it?

Considering Twitter randos also figured out the facts before CNN did by days. I think the issue is that you treat Twitter as a monolithic thing.

[szechuan]

That's how you divide. And it looks to me you people are doing it and blaming others for it.

Says the person Ignoring Donald Trump's Divisive Rhetoric.

[Theodarzna]

Oh no. I'm sure the kid's completely harmless.

The media in this case absolutely deserves everything, they have earned hatred and do not deserve respect. At best they deserve scorn and venom wherever they show their heads. And that is just for the dead of Iraq, Syria, Lybia and elswhere, for Sandman they at least all deserve to be shunned.

- - - Updated - - -

Says the person Ignoring Donald Trump's Divisive Rhetoric.

His rhetoric is involved how? I thought you lot prided yourself on your rationality? Is the simple knowledge that there is a president you don't like such an overpowering offense that you lash out at smiling white teenagers?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

CNN, WaPo ect admitting to being no better than Fox and less good at fact checking than Twitter rando's and Youtubers would be an incredible self own.

Can we not act so stupid as to think that CNN/WaPo making a few mistakes makes them the same as Fox? Really Theo? I expect better of you.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely.
Back when the news came out and the outraged journalists and media began screaming there were already all sorts of people popping out on youtube airing doubts and providing footage that things didn't go like that, like, at all.

It's not something that happened way later, it happened concurrently. Media screams, youtube at the very same time says "it's not correct".

If a bunch of randos on youtube could smell the story was fishy right away and immediately locate proof it was, why couldn't all those "professional" journalists? Where's the due diligence?

Thats not proof. I'm asking you for proof. You typed out words without any sources.

[Theodarzna]

Can we not act so stupid as to think that CNN/WaPo making a few mistakes makes them the same as Fox? Really Theo? I expect better of you.

Gaslighting doesn't help you. Never pretend you are some friend of mine when you aren't.

Making a few mistakes isn't what happened here. They not only didn't do any research, but they also were exceptionally slow to respond and in the case of WaPo insisted on using Russell Conjugations to still cast one actor in this as the villain despite being vindicated and the actual villain in all this as still sympethetic and good, despite everything.

Also, if the defense for CNN/WaPo is "WHAT ABOUT FOX!!!!?" then It isn't I who is making a moral equivalency.

[Machismo]

Oh, sick burn. My fe-fes will never recover!

This last response says it all folks. You can't defend your positions you can only attack me. I've pointed out your positions and how you abandoned them, pivoted from point to point as quick as you could and this really was your best.

/clap

Guess we are done.

My position has been the same, supporting freedom of speech and equality under the law. You are determined to punish CNN for not holding a standard that you couldn't even hold. What's worse, is you knew I was doing it, and you still couldn't come through.

[Malaky]

Because it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind with the media that they literally did their job. There are A LOT of news story that can be avoided with a "little bit of research." Do you really want to open that pandora's box?

"Everyone does it" is the excuse of the failures.

They received numerous reports on the event ... they had no reason to doubt that.

The got reports they didn't have reason to doubt, they had video that appeared to match the report and then they reported it ... literally their job. What you want is them to go farther than the job requires ... either you don't understand how media works or worse don't care.

And this is abhorrent.
They are journalists, it's their job to apply due diligence and make sure a story is true to the best of their worth before reporting it with certainty causing potential damage to people's reputations.... and that's "farther than the job requires"?
What the heck do you think a journalist is? A parrot? A circle-jerker whose job is just repeating what everyone says? That's activism, not journalism.

Again, all it took a few rando youtubers were minutes of research to find out the story was bs, yet those supposed "professionals" couldn't do the same?

Please. They didn't do their job. Or rather, they did their jobs as activists, not journalists.