Racists Caught Off Guard

[Kramer]

Looks like African Americans (like Obama for example) that cry racism all the time are now fighting accusations of gender discrimination. Sadly in Sarah Palin's case the accusations are true and Obama is abusive to women and discriminates them as well.

This election has brought many issues to the surface. I'm going to start a list and anyone that would like to add to it feel free.

1. People want real change and Sarah Palin represents it
2. It's time for a women VP to hit the scene and help change Washington
3. Gender discrimination is real but sadly it comes mostly from the Democrat Party and the left biased press
4. Obama represents the same old politician nothing new
5. Racism is real but sadly it comes mostly from the Democrat Party and the left biased press
6. Obama is a radical
7. 69% of American think the press is trying to get Obama elected
8. Obama wants to teach kindergarten children sex education
9. Obama  wants to kill babies born alive in late term abortions
10.

[Michael Tee]

Does this mean that The Barracuda is going to dump McCain for what he said about Chelsea and for calling his own wife a cunt and a trollop?

[richpo64]

>>Does this mean that The Barracuda is going to dump McCain for what he said about Chelsea and for calling his own wife a cunt and a trollop?<<

I'd love to see some sources.

[BT]

He's got a guy with a book deal who quotes sources who wish to remain anonymous

In otherwords he has nothing, nada, zip.

And unless we have a "Who's afraid of Virginia Wolff" scenario, where sniping is foreplay, my guess is Cindy wouldn't put up with talk like that.

.

[Michael Tee]

<<He's got a guy with a book deal who quotes sources who wish to remain anonymous.

<<In otherwords he has nothing, nada, zip.>>

Let's be a little more accurate, please.  If I DIDN'T have a guy with a book deal, THEN I would have "nothing, nada, zip."  In fact I've got Schecter, the guy with the book deal, I've ALSO got McCain NOT suing for libel despite Schecter's insistence that there were witnesses (a lawsuit would have forced Schecter to name and subpoena the witnesses, who could not claim fourth-estate privilege since the offensive words were allegedly addressed in public to Cindy, not to the journalists) and so a lawsuit which could easily resolve the truth or falsity of the allegation is for some unexplained reason avoided by McCain.  The ONLY plausible reason for McCain's failure to sue is the truth of the allegations.

<<And unless we have a "Who's afraid of Virginia Wolff" scenario, where sniping is foreplay, my guess is Cindy wouldn't put up with talk like that.>>

My guess is, as a recovered addict, she'd heard a lot worse.  Probably rolled off her like the proverbial water off a duck's back.

[richpo64]

>>I've ALSO got McCain NOT suing for libel despite ...<<

No BT is right. You have nothing.

[Plane]

, I've ALSO got McCain NOT suing for libel despite Schecter's insistence that there were witnesses (a lawsuit would have forced Schecter to name and subpoena the witnesses, who could not claim fourth-estate privilege since the offensive words were allegedly addressed in public to Cindy, not to the journalists)

Got any notion of how many such libel suits are successfull in the US on an annual basis?

I do not know how hard or easy it is to win a libel case in Canada but in the USA it is often not worth the candle.


But if you insist that such a lack of lawsuit is proof of guilt , I welcome you to the ranks of those who beleive everything the Hillary Clinton , Bill Clinton and John Kerry have been accused of.

[Michael Tee]

<<No BT is right. You have nothing.>>

Actually, you and BT are both wrong, since I have (a) Schecter's story and (b) McCain's failure to take action when it's alleged that others were present who are known to Schecter.

If I had neither the one nor the other, THEN I would have nothing.

[Plane]

<<No BT is right. You have nothing.>>

Actually, you and BT are both wrong, since I have (a) Schecter's story and (b) McCain's failure to take action when it's alleged that others were present who are known to Schecter.

If I had neither the one nor the other, THEN I would have nothing.

Ok ,it isn't nothing , but it is no more than all of those who accuse Hillary Clinton of killing Vince Foster have.

I don't know how to get the keybord to make the symbol used in calculous , which means "not none , but so little that the diffrence doesn't matter".

[richpo64]

McCain is  much to smart to fall for such nonsense. If this mystery book ever does see the light of day (which I doubt), we'll see what happens, but here in America public figures have a difficult time proving libel because the standards are so high for them. Look at it this way, President Bush could sue for billions in libel and slander if the law would allow it. McCain knows this. Like I said, it's nothing.

[Michael Tee]

<<Got any notion of how many such libel suits are successfull in the US on an annual basis?

<<I do not know how hard or easy it is to win a libel case in Canada but in the USA it is often not worth the candle.>>

Here's two that I found in less than a minute on Google - - they're winnable and McCain can certainly afford the legal talent that wins cases.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E0DB1631F93AA25751C1A960958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/S/Suits%20and%20Litigation

Banker Wins Libel Suit Against ABC Over '20/20'
By BARRY MEIER
Published: December 19, 1996
A Federal jury in Miami awarded $8.75 million in damages yesterday to the chairman of a major bank who had accused ABC News of libeling him in a television broadcast about real estate investments.
The jury ruled that the network and a producer for the ''20/20'' program must pay the compensatory damages to Alan Levan, the chairman and chief executive of Bank Atlantic, a major national financial institution based in Fort Lauderdale. It also awarded $1.25 million to the BankAtlantic Financial Corporation, the principal shareholder in Bank Atlantic, bringing the total award $10 million.
--------------------
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E2DC173BF932A15750C0A961958260

By IVER PETERSON
Published: March 21, 1997
A Federal jury in Houston awarded $222.7 million to a local bond brokerage firm yesterday in a libel suit over a 1993 article in The Wall Street Journal. The award is nearly four times greater than the previous record award for libel.
The brokerage firm, MMAR Group Inc., contended in its suit that the article made false statements that drove away its clients, causing the firm to close within a month of the article's appearance. The jury set $200 million in punitive damages and $22.7 million in compensation against Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones earned $190 million last year.

[Michael Tee]

I don't know how to get the keybord to make the symbol used in calculous , which means "not none , but so little that the diffrence doesn't matter".

=================================

I like your symbol better, it's a little unwieldy but everyone who sees it knows exactly what it means, whereas, faced with the calculus symbol instead, I'd still be scratching my head.  In the age of the macro, I don't think people should be deterred from the use of lengthy and cumbersome symbols when there is so much to be gained in intelligibility.

[Plane]

<<Got any notion of how many such libel suits are successfull in the US on an annual basis?

<<I do not know how hard or easy it is to win a libel case in Canada but in the USA it is often not worth the candle.>>

Here's two that I found in less than a minute on Google - - they're winnable and McCain can certainly afford the legal talent that wins cases.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E0DB1631F93AA25751C1A960958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/S/Suits%20and%20Litigation

Banker Wins Libel Suit Against ABC Over '20/20'
By BARRY MEIER
Published: December 19, 1996
A Federal jury in Miami awarded $8.75 million in damages yesterday to the chairman of a major bank who had accused ABC News of libeling him in a television broadcast about real estate investments.
The jury ruled that the network and a producer for the ''20/20'' program must pay the compensatory damages to Alan Levan, the chairman and chief executive of Bank Atlantic, a major national financial institution based in Fort Lauderdale. It also awarded $1.25 million to the BankAtlantic Financial Corporation, the principal shareholder in Bank Atlantic, bringing the total award $10 million.
--------------------
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E2DC173BF932A15750C0A961958260

By IVER PETERSON
Published: March 21, 1997
A Federal jury in Houston awarded $222.7 million to a local bond brokerage firm yesterday in a libel suit over a 1993 article in The Wall Street Journal. The award is nearly four times greater than the previous record award for libel.
The brokerage firm, MMAR Group Inc., contended in its suit that the article made false statements that drove away its clients, causing the firm to close within a month of the article's appearance. The jury set $200 million in punitive damages and $22.7 million in compensation against Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones earned $190 million last year.

Two wins in ten years?

That is not a lot.

You know that Ariel Sharon sued one of our publishers and won , sort of .

For a public figure to defend himself with a liable suit is unusual here , especially for politicians .

There are about five hundred legislators in the Congress/Senate , and they get a lot of guff, but you seldom hear of one of them sueing , even when accused of killing Vince Foster.

So if you want to beleive that McCain called his wife a nasty name , you also have to beleive that Hillary is a murrderer , the proof is equal. Are you sure this is worth beleivein in ?

[Michael Tee]

<<Two wins in ten years?

<<That is not a lot.>>

plane, I found those two in under a minute on the first page of the first Google search that I did.  If they were as rare as you seem to think they are, I'd still be looking.

This is a case where the guy who makes the allegation says there are two witnesses and he can name them.  In a lawsuit, he'd be forced to put up or shut up and the witnesses would not be able to claim any journalistic privileges.  It would be an open and shut case - - either Schecter could produce the guys or not.  If not, McCain wins.  If he produces them, they either back his story or not.  If not, again McCain wins; if yes, McCain loses. 

Why won't McCain take the bait?  The only logical answer is, because he knows the allegation against him is true.

[richpo64]

Neither the "chairman of a major bank" nor "a local bond brokerage firm" qualify as public figures.

You're wrong.