Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a brain.

Conservatives think that people who's health is affected by a doctor shouldn't be able to sue, but some broad that gets wrote about in the Times deserves millions. Gimme a break hypocrites.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or do you have some sort of goofy playbook?

Captain America · 12-31-08, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

He's in law school. I am a lawyer (and have been for more than 10 years). I will need to look this up.

Need a good Process Server?

Kandahar wrote this :

Quote:

So even if the NYT never explicitly said "Iseman and McCain had an affair," they certainly implied it and that was certainly the impression that an average reader would've gotten from the article.

Not to jump topic but that reminds me of Bush, Rummy, Powell, et al., in the run up to the war and the way they manipulated intelligence for their own agenda. Remember that? A LOT of things weren't explicititly said, but we were all led to believe otherwise.

TheNextEra · 12-31-08, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or do you have some sort of goofy playbook?

Sorry you don't like that mirror stuck in front of you to see the hypocritical side of you conservatives.

Fact: You guys complain about lawsuits against doctors
Fact: You guys are supporting this lawsuit.

Which part is false?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

Sorry you don't like that mirror stuck in front of you to see the hypocritical side of you conservatives.

Fact: You guys complain about lawsuits against doctors
Fact: You guys are supporting this lawsuit.

Which part is false?

Uhm the NY times for one is not a doctor?

But to your supposed "point"

I don't like frivolous lawsuits against anyone, even the NY slimes, slander and libel however is not frivolous.

You as usual mix a little fail with a mixture of flaccid partisan jibber jabber,

TheNextEra · 12-31-08, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Uhm the NY times for one is not a doctor?

But to your supposed "point"

I don't like frivolous lawsuits against anyone, even the NY slimes, slander and libel however is not frivolous.

You as usual mix a little fail with a mixture of flaccid partisan jibber jabber,

Yes, this lawsuit is frivilous. The fact you support it, shows your hyper-partisnship.

The only one failing is you.

This woman does not deserve millions.

But hey, it's the NYT and you hate them, so I guess that makes it alright.

Keep on failing Rev

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

Yes, this lawsuit is frivilous. The fact you support it, shows your hyper-partisnship.

The only one failing is you.

This woman does not deserve millions.

But hey, it's the NYT and you hate them, so I guess that makes it alright.

Keep on failing Rev

Here is a question for you to cut and run from.

Why is it frivolous?

Hatuey · 12-31-08, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Why is it frivolous?

27 million for somebody talking about conflicts of interests you might have had? Are people in this country even remotely serious anymore?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

27 million for somebody talking about conflicts of interests you might have had?

Apparently comprehension is not strong with you today. This is not a conflict of interest deal, its a defamation lawsuit.

Hatuey · 12-31-08, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Apparently comprehension is not strong with you today. This is not a conflict of interest deal, its a defamation lawsuit.

The defamation lawsuit is based on a possible conflict of interest story printed by the New York Times. It seems like it's you who doesn't get it. 27 million is a sign of how frivolous this is.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

The defamation lawsuit is based on a possible conflict of interest story printed by the New York Times. It seems like it's you who doesn't get it. 27 million is a sign of how frivolous this is.

and since the NYtimes is printed of paper, this is really about trees.

I.e. it is a defamation suit filed because of the printing of a something defaming a person that is not true.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Hatuey For This Useful Post:
aps