The Sandman Lawsuits

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#26 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:06 pm

BackInTex wrote: This is why the lawsuits are necessary....because you and others (Krox) still believe the negative narratives put out by the media.
While you believe the narratives put out by Fox News and Republican PR firms.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#27 Post by BackInTex » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:25 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: This is why the lawsuits are necessary....because you and others (Krox) still believe the negative narratives put out by the media.
While you believe the narratives put out by Fox News and Republican PR firms.
I watched the videos and what was put out by CNN and the Post don’t reconcile with them. Unlike you, when I see the evidence I can tell fact from (wishes it were so) fiction.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#28 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:15 pm

BackInTex wrote: I watched the videos and what was put out by CNN and the Post don’t reconcile with them. Unlike you, when I see the evidence I can tell fact from (wishes it were so) fiction.
And you just happened to stumble across those videos on your own without reading or hearing any right-wing commentary about them beforehand...

Were you just browsing through Youtube and decided you'd seen enough piano-playing-cat videos for one day and said, "Gee, maybe there's a longer version of that protest video out there somewhere."
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#29 Post by BackInTex » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:42 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: I watched the videos and what was put out by CNN and the Post don’t reconcile with them. Unlike you, when I see the evidence I can tell fact from (wishes it were so) fiction.
And you just happened to stumble across those videos on your own without reading or hearing any right-wing commentary about them beforehand...

Were you just browsing through Youtube and decided you'd seen enough piano-playing-cat videos for one day and said, "Gee, maybe there's a longer version of that protest video out there somewhere."
Why does it matter how I "stumbled across" the videos? You can deny they are real (they are), or claim they are edited (they are not) but how I happened to come across them is irrelevant. Your chatter is simply a distraction to avoid the truth.

You remind me of John Gibbons cross examining Sam Tipton.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#30 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:00 pm

BackInTex wrote: Why does it matter how I "stumbled across" the videos? You can deny they are real (they are), or claim they are edited (they are not) but how I happened to come across them is irrelevant. Your chatter is simply a distraction to avoid the truth.
I'm not denying they are real. I am saying that your impressions of them were shaped by what you heard beforehand which tied into what you were probably hoping that the video would show.

Here's a couple of articles that makes the same point:

https://www.futurity.org/video-evidence-bias-771802/

https://peoplescience.maritz.com/articl ... ation-bias

Confirmation bias exists with video evidence, and it's especially the case if you've been influenced to accept a particular version of "the facts."
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#31 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:51 pm

I'm not denying they are real. I am saying that your impressions of them were shaped by what you heard beforehand which tied into what you were probably hoping that the video would show.
Ah, excuse me: And your's weren't?
What chutzpah you have, even pondering the words you have just written.
I guess most of us aren't nearly as smart or discerning as you, ass clown.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#32 Post by Estonut » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:14 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: Why does it matter how I "stumbled across" the videos? You can deny they are real (they are), or claim they are edited (they are not) but how I happened to come across them is irrelevant. Your chatter is simply a distraction to avoid the truth.
I'm not denying they are real. I am saying that your impressions of them were shaped by what you heard beforehand which tied into what you were probably hoping that the video would show.

Here's a couple of articles that makes the same point:

https://www.futurity.org/video-evidence-bias-771802/

https://peoplescience.maritz.com/articl ... ation-bias

Confirmation bias exists with video evidence, and it's especially the case if you've been influenced to accept a particular version of "the facts."
Let me get this straight. You go out of your way to disparage the source of most every article posted which supports any conservative view, yet you provide a 4 1/2 year old post from "futurity.org" and a more recent post from "peoplescience.maritz.com" as definitive, concrete evidence supporting your viewpoint? Got it!
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#33 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:52 pm

Estonut wrote: Let me get this straight. You go out of your way to disparage the source of most every article posted which supports any conservative view, yet you provide a 4 1/2 year old post from "futurity.org" and a more recent post from "peoplescience.maritz.com" as definitive, concrete evidence supporting your viewpoint? Got it!
Confirmation bias isn't liberal or conservative and it's very well established. I just cited the first two articles I found that mentioned it in connection with video evidence. The leading expert on this is Adam Benforado, and he's written a book, which is excerpted here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... urors.html

To be fair, Benforado has said that the second video in this incident does show a different perspective and that how one views the incident may well depend on one's existing opinions.

To add to this, we had a PR blitz "explaining" every nuance of the incident in a manner favorable to the students and ignoring the facts that the students added to the situation by engaging in cheers of their own (including one guy taking off his shirt), and that they moved to encircle Phillips once he showed up.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#34 Post by BackInTex » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:20 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Estonut wrote: Let me get this straight. You go out of your way to disparage the source of most every article posted which supports any conservative view, yet you provide a 4 1/2 year old post from "futurity.org" and a more recent post from "peoplescience.maritz.com" as definitive, concrete evidence supporting your viewpoint? Got it!
Confirmation bias isn't liberal or conservative and it's very well established. I just cited the first two articles I found that mentioned it in connection with video evidence. The leading expert on this is Adam Benforado, and he's written a book, which is excerpted here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... urors.html

To be fair, Benforado has said that the second video in this incident does show a different perspective and that how one views the incident may well depend on one's existing opinions.

To add to this, we had a PR blitz "explaining" every nuance of the incident in a manner favorable to the students and ignoring the facts that the students added to the situation by engaging in cheers of their own (including one guy taking off his shirt), and that they moved to encircle Phillips once he showed up.
Sandman did none of that (take off his shirt, encircle the valor stealing professional protester, or cheer).
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#35 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:16 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Sandman did none of that (take off his shirt, encircle the valor stealing professional protester, or cheer).
Phillips could only stand in front of one person and it happened to be Sandman. Phillips didn't have the benefit of going over video records multiple times to identify just who did what and when. The group of students definitely encircled Phillips' group during the confrontation. And your constant references to Phillips as a "valor stealing professional protester" are the usual sort of crap slurs that right wingers like to throw out at people who actually have served. Phillips said he was Vietnam era military, not that he served in Vietnam.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#36 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:48 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Sandman did none of that (take off his shirt, encircle the valor stealing professional protester, or cheer).
Phillips could only stand in front of one person and it happened to be Sandman. Phillips didn't have the benefit of going over video records multiple times to identify just who did what and when. The group of students definitely encircled Phillips' group during the confrontation. And your constant references to Phillips as a "valor stealing professional protester" are the usual sort of crap slurs that right wingers like to throw out at people who actually have served. Phillips said he was Vietnam era military, not that he served in Vietnam.
I guess that is to differentiate it from the crap that left-wingers like you sling at anyone who disagrees with you. You are so propagandized it is not even worth responding to the bullshit you are fed from your batphone. Maybe someday you'll recognize how programmed you are. But I won't hold my breath.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#37 Post by BackInTex » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:09 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: And your constant references to Phillips as a "valor stealing professional protester" are the usual sort of crap slurs that right wingers like to throw out at people who actually have served. Phillips said he was Vietnam era military, not that he served in Vietnam.

He clarified his previous claims of being a Vietnam vet, after he was called on it.

Glad you agree he is a professional protester.

And you continue to validate the necessity for the lawsuits.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#38 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:29 pm

BackInTex wrote:
He clarified his previous claims of being a Vietnam vet, after he was called on it.
Please provide one source where Phillips claimed he was a Vietnam Vet. (Others have said that about him, but he has never said that.) As far as being a "professional protester," he's an activist, but I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics as to what a professional protester might be.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#39 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:37 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are so propagandized it is not even worth responding to the bullshit you are fed from your batphone.
I wish you could point out where this batphone is that I supposedly get my instructions from. It would be n ice if I could actually be like you and not have to do any thinking for myself, but I keep looking at facts instead of just shouting fake news anytime I disagree with something.

I've looked all around the house and can't find this batphone. Maybe Mrs. SSS hid it when she was cleaning up.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#40 Post by BackInTex » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:43 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
He clarified his previous claims of being a Vietnam vet, after he was called on it.
Please provide one source where Phillips claimed he was a Vietnam Vet. (Others have said that about him, but he has never said that)
Here is one: at 9:45
"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years."
Same video at 23:45
I got a Section 8 home because I'm a veteran, wartime veteran like that. Honorable, in theater, so I have Section 8 home.
I used Google, found this in about 30 seconds. You could, too, I bet, if you'd look beyond Snopes.

In an interview with Vogue he is quoted
You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role.
He was not a ranger, recon or otherwise. He was a refrigeration technician. And a liar.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#41 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:01 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are so propagandized it is not even worth responding to the bullshit you are fed from your batphone.
I wish you could point out where this batphone is that I supposedly get my instructions from. It would be n ice if I could actually be like you and not have to do any thinking for myself, but I keep looking at facts instead of just shouting fake news anytime I disagree with something.

I've looked all around the house and can't find this batphone. Maybe Mrs. SSS hid it when she was cleaning up.
Here are a couple of examples of your batphone:
https://www.futurity.org/video-evidence-bias-771802/

https://peoplescience.maritz.com/articl ... ation-bias

There are always biased and focus group tested answers posted on these kinds of 'reference' sites for any contested issue that you use to refute common sense and avoid actual debate. You do absolutely no thinking for yourself. You are totally propagandized and programmed. I will add 'it would be nice' to the list of your ubiquitous juvenile retorts which include 'I'm Glad', 'It amazes me' and 'It amuses me'. In all honesty, people like you scare the shit out of me.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#42 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:23 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
There are always biased and focus group tested answers posted on these kinds of 'reference' sites for any contested issue that you use to refute common sense and avoid actual debate.
Let's start with the article in Futurity. It's based on a cited study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. Do you have a particular problem with the methodology used in that study or any reason to believe it was inaccurate other than the fact that it "refutes common sense"? Or do you have a problem with the credentials of the professors who conducted the study? Do you even know who those professors are?

Admittedly, the article in Peoplescience was a more general article intended to explain a phenomenon in lay terms rather than offer academic proof. But I'm not sure what your point is. Do you not believe that confirmation bias exists? Is this based on your claims about "refuting common sense"? It's hard to tell with you, Flock, because when you get on one of your batphone tangents, you cease making even what little common sense you normally make.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#43 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:40 pm

BackInTex wrote: He was not a ranger, recon or otherwise. He was a refrigeration technician. And a liar.
I wasn't aware of the first tape you mentioned. I did listen to the portions of that Facebook post. Here's what Snopes has to say that's more updated:
In an older, rambling Facebook video that surfaced after the controversy broke, though, Phillips could seemingly be heard to say (at around the 9:35 mark) “I’m a Vietnam vet, and I served in Marine Corps 72 to 76. I got discharged May 5th, 1976 … I don’t talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say I don’t recollect, I don’t recall those years”:
But in other similar videos, Phillips described himself as a “Vietnam-era vet” or referenced his Marine Corps service without mentioning Vietnam.
In those many hours of interviews and videos, Phillips has made a number of unclear or ambiguous statements about his service that allow for a variety of interpretations (or misinterpretations). In the first Facebook video linked above, for example, he stated — in reference to a form related to his discharge — that he left the service in peacetime and “what my box says is that I was ‘in theater.'” He didn’t say what theater, though, nor did he directly declare that he was in fact ‘in theater’ during his time in the Marines. He cryptically observed something about a “box” on his discharge form, and it was unclear whether he garbled whatever he was trying to say, was being deceptive, or was pointing out a mistake.

In a 2018 Vogue article about Standing Rock, Phillips referenced Vietnam and his being “a recon ranger,” but again the statement was ambiguous — he said he was “from Vietnam times” and that “I’m what they call a recon ranger,” but it was again unclear whether he intended his statement to convey that he had actually served as a “recon ranger” in Vietnam (which he did not), or whether he was using the term “recon ranger” to describe his post-military activities:

“I have a relative here who said he’d lead the way and scout ahead for us,” Phillips continued, his voice breaking. “You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role. So I thank you for taking that point position for me.”

According to Daniel Paul Nelson, Phillips’ comments “were taken out of context and [he] actually was referring to the work they were doing at the time on the reservation.”
If you want to take two moments from a very rambling, somewhat incoherent 36-minute self-recorded Facebook post as evidence that's he's trying to pass himself off as something he's not, then he's sure choosing a very obscure way of doing so. When Phillips does take the time to respond in a more focused interview setting, he specifies that he served in "Vietnam era" or "Vietnam time."

And if you look at the website where this video was posted, Phillips appears to have made two or three dozen of these videos, ranging from 15 minutes to over an hour (most have very few views). Someone combed through all those to find two brief mentions of supposed Vietnam service.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#44 Post by Estonut » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:19 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: He was not a ranger, recon or otherwise. He was a refrigeration technician. And a liar.
I wasn't aware of the first tape you mentioned. I did listen to the portions of that Facebook post. Here's what Snopes has to say that's more updated:
In an older, rambling Facebook video that surfaced after the controversy broke, though, Phillips could seemingly be heard to say (at around the 9:35 mark) “I’m a Vietnam vet, and I served in Marine Corps 72 to 76. I got discharged May 5th, 1976 … I don’t talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say I don’t recollect, I don’t recall those years”:
But in other similar videos, Phillips described himself as a “Vietnam-era vet” or referenced his Marine Corps service without mentioning Vietnam.
In those many hours of interviews and videos, Phillips has made a number of unclear or ambiguous statements about his service that allow for a variety of interpretations (or misinterpretations). In the first Facebook video linked above, for example, he stated — in reference to a form related to his discharge — that he left the service in peacetime and “what my box says is that I was ‘in theater.'” He didn’t say what theater, though, nor did he directly declare that he was in fact ‘in theater’ during his time in the Marines. He cryptically observed something about a “box” on his discharge form, and it was unclear whether he garbled whatever he was trying to say, was being deceptive, or was pointing out a mistake.

In a 2018 Vogue article about Standing Rock, Phillips referenced Vietnam and his being “a recon ranger,” but again the statement was ambiguous — he said he was “from Vietnam times” and that “I’m what they call a recon ranger,” but it was again unclear whether he intended his statement to convey that he had actually served as a “recon ranger” in Vietnam (which he did not), or whether he was using the term “recon ranger” to describe his post-military activities:

“I have a relative here who said he’d lead the way and scout ahead for us,” Phillips continued, his voice breaking. “You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role. So I thank you for taking that point position for me.”

According to Daniel Paul Nelson, Phillips’ comments “were taken out of context and [he] actually was referring to the work they were doing at the time on the reservation.”
If you want to take two moments from a very rambling, somewhat incoherent 36-minute self-recorded Facebook post as evidence that's he's trying to pass himself off as something he's not, then he's sure choosing a very obscure way of doing so. When Phillips does take the time to respond in a more focused interview setting, he specifies that he served in "Vietnam era" or "Vietnam time."

And if you look at the website where this video was posted, Phillips appears to have made two or three dozen of these videos, ranging from 15 minutes to over an hour (most have very few views). Someone combed through all those to find two brief mentions of supposed Vietnam service.
Interesting that you "forgot" to post the link to your Snopes article. Were you afraid that people would see the real story?
The author of the rest of sss' Snopes item wrote:In a 2008 article about Native American veterans, Phillips was cited as maintaining that he had been called “a baby killer” and spat upon — experiences commonly reported by Vietnam veterans returning to the U.S. — but that article now identifies him as a “veteran of the Vietnam era” and notes in a correction that “This article has been adjusted from its original version to show that Nathan Phillips was a Vietnam-era veteran and that he was spit on while in uniform as opposed to when he was returning from combat.” Did Phillips explicitly say he suffered such indignities while returning to the U.S. from Vietnam, or did the writer mistakenly assume that from something less specific that Phillips said to him?

Another Vogue article from January 2019 about Phillips stated that he “joined the Marines and served as an infantryman in the Vietnam War,” but that reference was soon excised from the article (without a correction notice). Again, did Phillips explicitly tell the writer he was “an infantryman in the Vietnam War,” or was that yet another misunderstanding of something Phillips (or someone else) said?

It’s difficult to determine at this point whether Phillips has deliberately misrepresented the nature of his service, whether he has been so vague and ambiguous in many of his descriptions (unintentionally or otherwise) that misinterpretations have entered his narrative, or whether he has tried to be accurate but may have just occasionally slipped up in his many, many hours of conversation and sometimes neglected to include the qualifiers about his service that he has used in many other videos and press interviews. Nonetheless, at times it has certainly sounded as though Phillips was trying to foster the impression that he had both served during the Vietnam War and had been deployed to Vietnam at some point during his service, even if he didn’t literally say so.

We note that Veteran’s Affairs (VA), for the purposes of determining eligibility for VA Pension benefits, considers the Vietnam era to be the period between 28 February 1961 to 7 May 1975 for those who served in Vietnam, and between 5 August 1964 and 7 May 1975 (a window during which Phillips’ reported service falls) for those who served elsewhere. The Military Times noted that Phillips had “spent four years in the Marine Corps Reserve and left in 1976 with the rank of private, or E-1, the Marines said in a statement providing his personal releasable information,” but we haven’t yet been obtained copies of Phillips’ official service records to verify exactly when and where he might have served.

(We note that an image purporting to be a copy of Phillips’ DD Form 214 — Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty — has been circulated on social media, but that image has not yet been verified.)
Interesting how this jackass has always told the truth, yet journalist after journalist keeps "misinterpreting" what he had said. It would have been SIMPLE for him to avoid all ambiguity by stating his service years without mentioning Vietnam, but he never did that.
Snopes author wrote:In reality, Phillips served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, a service spokeswoman, Yvonne Carlock, said. He spent much of his enlistment in California, did not deploy and left the service as a private after disciplinary issues. From October 1972 to February 1973, he was classified as an antitank missileman, a kind of infantryman, Carlock said. He then became a refrigerator technician for the majority of his service.
This asshole was fixing refrigerators in CA during the Vietnam War. Now read his quotes again and tell me he hasn't intentionally misled journalists about his service record.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 23296
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#45 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:07 pm

Oh for fuck's sake! Phillips is a paragon of virtue compared to our president.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#46 Post by Estonut » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:05 am

Bob Juch wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! Phillips is a paragon of virtue compared to our president.
Oh, are we making nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant comparisons now? Our president is a genius compared to you!
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17946
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#47 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:22 am

Well, the defamation lawsuit craze is taking off in right-wing circles. Devin Nunes has filed a $250M suit against Twitter, Republican political consultant Liz Mair, and two Twitter users identified only as "Devin Nunes' Mom" and "Devin Nunes' Cow" claiming that they:
maliciously attacked every aspect of Nunes’ character, honesty, integrity, ethics, and fitness to perform his duties as a United States Congressman.” The attacks included accusing Nunes of racism, claiming he had obstructed justice in the Congressional probe on Russian political interference, and calling him a “treasonous cowpoke.”

Among the comments from Devin's cow during the last election campaign: "Devin’s boots are full of manure. He’s udder-ly worthless and it’s pasture time to mooove him to prison."

Obviously, California voters didn't do quite good enough a job of getting rid of the trash this last election. By the way, Devin's Cow had just over 1,000 followers before the lawsuit was filed yesterday and over 70,000 now.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/1827 ... defamation

In related news, one of Devin's role models, Vladimir Putin, just signed into law a set of bills making it a crime in Russia to disrespect the state and spread fake news online. Putin's other US associate, Donald Trump, is probably taking notice and planning his own set of laws.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/ ... law-a64850
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
eyégor
???????
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Trollsberg

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#48 Post by eyégor » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:58 am

Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! Phillips is a paragon of virtue compared to our president.
Oh, are we making nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant comparisons now? Our president is a genius compared to you!

And a fly is a genius when compared to an amoeba.

Glad to see public debate on this bored has progressed to the high level reached here in my absence

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 30267
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Suavitel and Fabuloso
Contact:

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#49 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:13 am

eyégor wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! Phillips is a paragon of virtue compared to our president.
Oh, are we making nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant comparisons now? Our president is a genius compared to you!

And a fly is a genius when compared to an amoeba.

Glad to see public debate on this bored has progressed to the high level reached here in my absence

Well, the Merry Men all left and that sent the collective IQ of the Bored plummeting...

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 11044
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: The Sandman Lawsuits

#50 Post by Beebs52 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:09 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
eyégor wrote:
Estonut wrote:Oh, are we making nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant comparisons now? Our president is a genius compared to you!

And a fly is a genius when compared to an amoeba.

Glad to see public debate on this bored has progressed to the high level reached here in my absence

Well, the Merry Men all left and that sent the collective IQ of the Bored plummeting...

lb13
Yeah, but you know you loves us ' cause we're YOUR morons.
Oh please.

Post Reply