Judge reaches a decision in Palin vs. New York Times case

[LaDexter]

fringe kooks lose in court.

In court, the Zionist NYT rarely loses, since the judge is almost always Jewish...

 

[Faun]

Maybe according to you... not to nature.

You may be anything but defective to you but you think abnormal is OK. Fags and lesbians serve no purpose in society but as something to make fun of for being what they are.

Personally, I find making fun of conservatives who spout such nonsense waaay more entertaining, but that's just me. But my guilty pleasures aside, you don't speak for nature's laws. And whether or not they contribute to society has nothing to do with who they have sex with.

Personally, I find those of you that considers fags and lesbians anything but 2nd class to be on their level.

You don't speak for nature's laws.

Whether or not they're 2nd class is based on choices they make and if they make one to be attracted to the same sex, they're 2nd class. By the way, it is a choice unless you want to argue that sexual orientation is the only thing for which people have no choice. If some mentally ill retard can believe they're a gender other than the one they were born, in other words make a choice, so is the same for fags and lesbians.

You never answered the question as to how you made your choice. Did you flip a coin? Did you draw a gender out of a hat? Are you equally attracted to both men and women or do you find you're attracted to one more than the other?

I did. You didn't like the answer, freak. I also explained why there is no such thing as a bisexual. You apparently did understand that either.

Dumbfuck... words have meaning and you don't get to make up your own definitions to suit your sick agenda.

Hetrosexual - someone sexually attracted to the opposite gender.

Homosexual - someone sexually attracted to their own gender.

Bisexual - someone sexually attracted to both genders.

 

[Faun]

Personally, I find making fun of conservatives who spout such nonsense waaay more entertaining, but that's just me. But my guilty pleasures aside, you don't speak for nature's laws. And whether or not they contribute to society has nothing to do with who they have sex with.

Personally, I find those of you that considers fags and lesbians anything but 2nd class to be on their level.

You don't speak for nature's laws.

Whether or not they're 2nd class is based on choices they make and if they make one to be attracted to the same sex, they're 2nd class. By the way, it is a choice unless you want to argue that sexual orientation is the only thing for which people have no choice. If some mentally ill retard can believe they're a gender other than the one they were born, in other words make a choice, so is the same for fags and lesbians.

You never answered the question as to how you made your choice. Did you flip a coin? Did you draw a gender out of a hat? Are you equally attracted to both men and women or do you find you're attracted to one more than the other?

I did. You didn't like the answer, freak. I also explained why there is no such thing as a bisexual. You apparently did understand that either.

So you don't actually believe that you could choose to suck a dudes cock and enjoy it, right? You don't choose your attractions, only whether to act upon them. That you insist you chose just tells anyone reading this thread that you are a bisexual (and, yes, they DO exist)

You can choose your attractions and I chose women. That's something we have in common.

Bisexuals don't exist based on my explanation you ignore.

Why do you idiots believe someone can make a choice related to what gender you want to be but not what attraction you have.

It's OK. You 2nd classers have to feel good about yourself in one way or another. Whatever makes you feel good. It's about all you have going for you.

Really? You could choose to have sex with a man? That's not something I could do. I think Seawytch is right, you're bisexual. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

 

[Seawytch]

Personally, I find making fun of conservatives who spout such nonsense waaay more entertaining, but that's just me. But my guilty pleasures aside, you don't speak for nature's laws. And whether or not they contribute to society has nothing to do with who they have sex with.

Personally, I find those of you that considers fags and lesbians anything but 2nd class to be on their level.

You don't speak for nature's laws.

Whether or not they're 2nd class is based on choices they make and if they make one to be attracted to the same sex, they're 2nd class. By the way, it is a choice unless you want to argue that sexual orientation is the only thing for which people have no choice. If some mentally ill retard can believe they're a gender other than the one they were born, in other words make a choice, so is the same for fags and lesbians.

You never answered the question as to how you made your choice. Did you flip a coin? Did you draw a gender out of a hat? Are you equally attracted to both men and women or do you find you're attracted to one more than the other?

I did. You didn't like the answer, freak. I also explained why there is no such thing as a bisexual. You apparently did understand that either.

So you don't actually believe that you could choose to suck a dudes cock and enjoy it, right? You don't choose your attractions, only whether to act upon them. That you insist you chose just tells anyone reading this thread that you are a bisexual (and, yes, they DO exist)

You can choose your attractions and I chose women. That's something we have in common.

I did not choose to be attracted to women, I just was. You seem to think you could suck a dudes dick or take it up your ass or kiss a guy, passionately and enjoy it. Is that the case for you? It isn't for me but I don't believe orientation is a choice. (Backed up by science)

Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality

Bisexuals don't exist based on my explanation you ignore.

Based on your ignorant opinion. Again science disagrees.

Scientific Study Finds That Bisexuality Really Exists | TIME.com

Why do you idiots believe someone can make a choice related to what gender you want to be but not what attraction you have.

Because they aren't making a choice either...they are fixing a mistake.

Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News

It's OK. You 2nd classers have to feel good about yourself in one way or another. Whatever makes you feel good. It's about all you have going for you.

What is clear is your inferiority complex...and your conflictedness about your sexuality.

 

[g5000]

I chose to not be attracted to men just like you chose to be attracted to women.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

 

[Faun]

I chose to not be attracted to men just like you chose to be attracted to women.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

That it's a choice for him means he is gay (according to his definition where no one is bisexual).

 

[g5000]

I had no choice whatsoever about being attracted to women. None at all.

My first crush was on my second grade teacher, Miss Vega. She was gorgeous.

I finally fell in love with someone my own age when I was nine. My first kiss. Maureen. A beautiful Irish girl.

Years later, when I was home on leave from the military, I was in a bar with some friends. We ordered some drinks. A few minutes later, a hand came over my shoulder to put my drink on the table and I instantly knew it was Maureen.

No distinguishing marks or anything. I just knew it was her. Nine years after I had last seen her.

 

[Dim Bulb]

A lower "level"? As what being the basis? Your mind? Under the laws of this land it's exactly the same.

Under the laws of nature, it's not.

And what are these "laws of nature"? Can you list some? Homosexuality is found in "nature" in hundreds of species so that would seem to be the opposite of a violation of the "laws of nature".

At least you're honest enough to equate what you are to the level of animals that act without thinking and as savage beasts. If you want to put yourself on the level of a male dog that humps other male dogs, I agree that you are.

Ah, so now you want to "have it both ways". Are you sure you aren't bisexual? You want to play the "it ain't nachrul" card, but when it is pointed out that many animals are not only homosexual, but some even mate for life, you want play it the other way and say "nature means animals that eat their young" or some other ignorant shit.

Pick an argument, man. Which is it? "Against nature" or "nature is bad"?

Humans are animals, you realize, right? Mammals to be exact. We do have an ability that is not scientifically proven in other animals. Do you know what that is?

I said if you want to put yourself on the level of animals, which is lower than humans, I agree that you are.

Human are animals of a higher level. Humans think. Other animals do not. That's what separates us from those with which you classify yourself.

I chose to be heterosexual just like you chose to be a lesbian. Difference is I'm proud of my decision and you want to claim you were born like the level of animals you insist on comparing yourself to. Again, I agree you're on that level. You can't be anything but that. At least be proud of your choices even the bad ones. You made them.

By the way, there's no such thing as a bisexual.

All animals think. They simply think in a different consciousness. I think the distinction you are looking for is that humans have the ability to reason. Some higher mammals appear to share a rudimentary form of reasoning. But reasoning is what sets us apart. But anything with a brain "thinks." Except perhaps for those who follow a political figure blindly no matter what he or she does or says.

 

[g5000]

I chose to not be attracted to men just like you chose to be attracted to women.

I could not choose to be attracted to men any more than I can choose to like raw carrots.

Every once in a while, I come across someone who likes raw carrots and I think to myself, "You must be some kind of fag!"

 

[Tom Horn]

I don't recall my journalism textbooks saying even though you know it's a lie at the time you print it, it's not libel. They clearly intended to harm her reputation and earning power without a shred of evidence....all the ingredients for a successful lawsuit. Seems the new standard is you can say anything, no matter how perverse about somebody as long as you quickly retract it. No wonder the MSM is little more than tabloid crap anymore and the leftist trash here abides by it as long as it's aimed at an "enemy".

 

[Seawytch]

I had no choice whatsoever about being attracted to women. None at all.

My first crush was on my second grade teacher, Miss Vega. She was gorgeous.

I finally fell in love with someone my own age when I was nine. My first kiss. Maureen. A beautiful Irish girl.

Years later, when I was home on leave from the military, I was in a bar with some friends. We ordered some drinks. A few minutes later, a hand came over my shoulder to put my drink on the table and I instantly knew it was Maureen.

No distinguishing marks or anything. I just knew it was her. Nine years after I had last seen her.

Mine was Joleen in kindergarten. I went to catechism because she did and I wasn't catholic. Also Julie Andrews. Still love her to this day...

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

How lucky is she you don't govern the laws of nature?

Never said I did. They govern themselves and she lost as a defective product. Sometimes that happens.

Maybe according to you... not to nature.

You may be anything but defective to you but you think abnormal is OK. Fags and lesbians serve no purpose in society but as something to make fun of for being what they are.

Personally, I find making fun of conservatives who spout such nonsense waaay more entertaining, but that's just me. But my guilty pleasures aside, you don't speak for nature's laws. And whether or not they contribute to society has nothing to do with who they have sex with.

Personally, I find those of you that considers fags and lesbians anything but 2nd class to be on their level.

You don't speak for nature's laws.

Whether or not they're 2nd class is based on choices they make and if they make one to be attracted to the same sex, they're 2nd class. By the way, it is a choice unless you want to argue that sexual orientation is the only thing for which people have no choice. If some mentally ill retard can believe they're a gender other than the one they were born, in other words make a choice, so is the same for fags and lesbians.

Anyone that speaks of possessing superiority over another human being possesses a broken, outdated and fundamentally flawed reasoning. It is accepted only by those using the same methodology. Nothing grows in a vacuum, so precisely nothing is accomplished. It is pointless to even engage with such a flawed individual, because they are likely aware of their own logical fallacies. Thus, they would likely end their miserable life before any admission of guilt, so debate is pointless.

Translation: Hardly anyone cares what you think bigot, so you should probably fuck right off.

 

[miketx]

At the time the NYT had some standing as a news source. Now it doesn't much matter as a mouth-piece of the DNC.

You keep peddling that line of bull....like your Orange master tells you to.

Nonsense! Anyone with a brain can see the bias.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I don't recall my journalism textbooks saying even though you know it's a lie at the time you print it, it's not libel. They clearly intended to harm her reputation and earning power without a shred of evidence....all the ingredients for a successful lawsuit. Seems the new standard is you can say anything, no matter how perverse about somebody as long as you quickly retract it. No wonder the MSM is little more than tabloid crap anymore and the leftist trash here abides by it as long as it's aimed at an "enemy".

Tom, its more complicated than that. The NYT was gonna win that case even if they weren't right. Palin had to prove actual malice and willful disregard for the truth. That is a much higher standard than knowing it was false. You can't infer malice and willful disregard. You have to have actual evidence. Emails and such. Don't argue with me about it if you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. I can give you their address if you'd like.

 

[Tom Horn]

I don't recall my journalism textbooks saying even though you know it's a lie at the time you print it, it's not libel. They clearly intended to harm her reputation and earning power without a shred of evidence....all the ingredients for a successful lawsuit. Seems the new standard is you can say anything, no matter how perverse about somebody as long as you quickly retract it. No wonder the MSM is little more than tabloid crap anymore and the leftist trash here abides by it as long as it's aimed at an "enemy".

Tom, its more complicated than that. The NYT was gonna win that case even if they weren't right. Palin had to prove actual malice and willful disregard for the truth. That is a much higher standard than knowing it was false. You can't infer malice and willful disregard. You have to have actual evidence. Emails and such. Don't argue with me about it if you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. I can give you their address if you'd like.

I don't need the USSC to set you straight. There was obviously a political bias easily proven by other stories and editorials they did on her. The law is principally based on what an ordinary person would do or say or believe. How far afield would you have to be to believe the clip-art registration marks (not bullseyes) were targeting politicians for snipers? It's absurd and they knew it. No emails are necessary to prove malice aforethought. All Palin was required to prove was that she was harmed financially.....the pain and suffering caused by being accused of inciting violence and murder goes without saying. The judge had no right to dismiss this case based on a quick retraction...you can't and I can't find case law to substantiate that.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I don't recall my journalism textbooks saying even though you know it's a lie at the time you print it, it's not libel. They clearly intended to harm her reputation and earning power without a shred of evidence....all the ingredients for a successful lawsuit. Seems the new standard is you can say anything, no matter how perverse about somebody as long as you quickly retract it. No wonder the MSM is little more than tabloid crap anymore and the leftist trash here abides by it as long as it's aimed at an "enemy".

Tom, its more complicated than that. The NYT was gonna win that case even if they weren't right. Palin had to prove actual malice and willful disregard for the truth. That is a much higher standard than knowing it was false. You can't infer malice and willful disregard. You have to have actual evidence. Emails and such. Don't argue with me about it if you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. I can give you their address if you'd like.

I don't need the USSC to set you straight. There was obviously a political bias easily proven by other stories and editorials they did on her. The law is principally based on what an ordinary person would do or say or believe. How far afield would you have to be to believe the clip-art registration marks (not bullseyes) were targeting politicians for snipers? It's absurd and they knew it. No emails are necessary to prove malice aforethought. All Palin was required to prove was that she was harmed financially.....the pain and suffering caused by being accused of inciting violence and murder goes without saying. The judge had no right to dismiss this case based on a quick retraction...you can't and I can't find case law to substantiate that.

It's common law. Not statutory. I am not opining on bias clearly it exists. You're just wrong on the law.

 

[bodecea]

fringe kooks lose in court.

In court, the Zionist NYT rarely loses, since the judge is almost always Jewish...

And the Alt-Right and trumpanzees are UNFAIRLY called anti-semitic.

 

[bodecea]

At the time the NYT had some standing as a news source. Now it doesn't much matter as a mouth-piece of the DNC.

You keep peddling that line of bull....like your Orange master tells you to.

Nonsense! Anyone with a brain can see the bias.

The trumpanzees are treated SO unfairly!

 

[miketx]

At the time the NYT had some standing as a news source. Now it doesn't much matter as a mouth-piece of the DNC.

You keep peddling that line of bull....like your Orange master tells you to.

Nonsense! Anyone with a brain can see the bias.

The trumpanzees are treated SO unfairly!

Flaming noted.

 

[g5000]

I don't recall my journalism textbooks saying even though you know it's a lie at the time you print it, it's not libel. They clearly intended to harm her reputation and earning power without a shred of evidence....all the ingredients for a successful lawsuit. Seems the new standard is you can say anything, no matter how perverse about somebody as long as you quickly retract it. No wonder the MSM is little more than tabloid crap anymore and the leftist trash here abides by it as long as it's aimed at an "enemy".

Trump lowered the bar. You reap what you sow.