END OF MESSAGE

You and I are most likely next.

Hey, Fuck The French!!! They are a nation of fucking pussies!!!


I wonder how much that just cost me??? lmao

Where you here when Priapussy threatened to sue me for slander when I ragged on him for months for welshing on a lousy $50 bet? He claimed I was "ruining" his reputation. I hired mrfisher to represent me and I believe the suit was dismissed with prejudice. lmao

END OF MESSAGE

shouldn't bigguy be very worried if Fox loses? Who insults more than he? Fish just may take our case against him! LOL

even as applied to the media. FOX did not simply insult Paris as you believe but made false statements of existing fact that there were “no-go” zones for non-Muslims in Paris that even the police avoided.  This, in turn, Le Lawyers will argue, caused a drop in tourism which translates into substantial monetary damages.

          Truth is a defense to Fox but it is undisputed that the statements were untrue. A good faith attempt to verify the accuracy of the source – FoX apparently relied on some combat vet who runs a web site – is also a  defense, but Fox in its “apology” admitted not only that the statements were false but that there was no credible reason to believe they were true. Ouch – what in -house soon to be ex-lawyer cleared that one?

It was a GUEST on FOX, not FOX News that said it.

They corrected the record within hours.  

And the "there was no credible reason to believe they were true" was when they fact checked it AFTER the program, not during.  

The drop in tourism, if any, will be attributable to the bombings, not some dude that's a guest on Fox. LOL

Come on, get real. You don't have to argue EVERYTHING.  

Wait...maybe you do? LOL

END OF MESSAGE

I would be willing to give some VERY long odds. lol

Of course Mari was too chicken to even acknowledge my many posts on the subject, much less take me up on my wager. I wonder if he has grown any guts over the last several months? Mari???? I am waiting. lol

FOX News and their guest made.

Well, perhaps not. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just if there are enough people who want to believe it!  

It does not matter if someone else says it – if you publish it without making a good faith attempt to verify, you have defamed the subject. Even in the US, if the NY Times publishes as a fact a claim by some source that the Times knows is false, the Times is liable. It is no defense to say “we’re just repeating what this nut said.” Try watching "Absence of Malice" some time.

         And Fox’s after the fact attempt to verify – which showed that the statement was untrue 0- is precisely the problem. It shows they made no attempt to verify before the publication.

         Nonetheless, I’m relieved to find that you do not watch Fox 24/7 or you would have seen that icon of responsible journalism, Sean Hannity, assert the statement as a fact:

"      Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology on Saturday night for having allowed its anchors and guests to repeat the false claim that there are Muslim-only “no-go zones” in European countries like England and France that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to Shariah law.

….

          On Jan. 7, hours after the deadly attack on the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, Mr. Emerson and the Fox News host Sean Hannity had a lengthy discussion of how, they said, Islamic extremism was rampant in parts of France outside of state control. " ‘No-go zone,’ ” Mr. Hannity asserted as a matter of fact, “means no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system. So basically these countries have allowed Muslims to take over parts of their country, entire portions..."

       So, unless you consider Hannity to be a guest on his show LOL, I am afraid you are quite mistaken that only a guest made the assertion

people on the planet. I was coerced by my boss 20 years ago to do a proposal for SNCF (the French National Railroad). There I am in a conference room with about 10 representatives. The lead guy from SNCF immediately goes to the pricing section, looks at me, and says with that fucking French accent, "Do you think I am some sort of a pigeon"? I lean over to my finance guy, and ask him, "what the hell did he just say"? My finance guys says, "I think he thinks you believe he is some sort of a pigeon". "Like the bird", I said.  

Sure pigeons shit everywhere, but they coo and carry messages. All in all, being called a pigeon is not necessarily bad, is it? Come to find out, calling a Frenchman a pigeon, is basically calling him a fool. It's a big fucking insult. I added $10 million to the proposal because, well lets just say I don't like the French and leave it at that.

Did I say the French were lazy. Another reason why I padded the proposal. We would have been forced to work with their IT union. Did we win? NO, thank God!

Kinda like "I promise you'll get to keep your doctor!", huh Matt?

You know this has ZERO chance of succeeding. Less than Zero.

They wont be able to bring it to a U.S. court so they are stuck in a French court where Fox has virtually zero visibility.

Then if it passed muster there, Fox is protected by the SPEECH Act thus your beloved Parisians wouldn't get dime one.

On top of all that, the PR of Paris suing an American company under these circumstances would only make France look like bigger pussies than they already are.

If Paris is REALLY worried about its rep, they will STFU about this meritless nonsense, and that but fast. LOL

And, yes if the insurance companies had chosen to cooperate with the program, more people than not could have kept their doctor. I have family members who did. I was just a matter of checking with their doctors regarding what plans they'd be participating in, then choosing that plan.

My $ 100.00  against your case of Ripple gone mad says Fox won't have to pay a penny.  
    More likely an honest Judge, if there's such a thing in Paris , would rule, Honor is a cause long lost in France.  
  I'd have a better chance at winning a law suit against  CBS.    

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2013/02/dan-rather-still-cant-admit-he-lied.html

Obama lies and its the insurance companies fault!

Let me let you in on a little secret. Obama lied about people keeping their plans too. Shhhhh..!

Look, whoever you are, please take of moderate Matt for us.

We miss him!

END OF MESSAGE

I haven’t seen one of them get it right so far bc they always analyze under US law instead of French law.

       But here is how it would go down if the Mayor is serious about this lawsuit and if a city has standing to sue. In France, you can file defamation claims in the criminal court and if the Public Prosecutor finds that the defamation has a racial element –which is precisely the case here - he is authorized to file criminal charges.

        If this happens and the state prevails, a fine would be imposed against Fox. If Fox refused to pay, its French broadcasting license would be in jeopardy. So Fox most certainly would pay.

      The Speech Act has no application – that simply bars US courts from enforcing foreign judgments for damages that offend the First Amendment.  

    The real risk is the loss of the cable broadcasting license. Hence Fox’s profuse apologies. Fortunately for Fox, I'd  guess that the mayor has enough to do without going to court about this and is just blowing off steam

My wife kept her plan. People didn't have to sigh up for ACA if they didn't want to, so she didn't.

You believe Obama lied about ACA, I believe Bush lied about WMD's. Which statements and applied policies cost the most lives.

END OF MESSAGE

comment bc at least one time Mr. Obama said "you can keep your own doctor, period."  So it was just a bonehead comment that continues to mystify me when you consider how many professionals vet the President's public statements.

         But you are absolutely correct - the statement was literally true in many cases so long as "your doctor" ended up being on the same network as your health plan. More important, however, is that this is a criticism of Mr. Obama and not the Affordable Care Act - that statute says nothing about being able to keep your doctor.

I'm sure CNN wishes they could sue for reporting the news.

The Affordable Care Act says many things the country wasn't told, those who signed it into law, didn't know what they were signing.  
  When will the fog clear up ?  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
   
   

No "bone head comment" bro. Intentional. And it's not me saying it.

It's the Pulitzer Prize winning, non-partisan Politifact.com.

Sorry Mari...your hero lied so badly, they gave it there "lie of the year."

But you and Matt believe what you wish about Barry.

Facts don't matter when it's a religion!

-- Modified on 1/20/2015 10:16:05 PM

It's insulting to the USA that we're now going to have to send troops to clean up a fuckin mess they made.

The French let the Islamist's come into their country and basically just squat with no accountability to anything or anyone.  Like most of Europe, it's an anything goes society.

.............Well Matt I'm betting my left testicle that you'll get zero response from JD about which POTUS lies cost the most lives.

END OF MESSAGE

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa
"The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.  
The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.  
I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.  

In this next example, you will see the type of concealment activity Iraq has undertaken in response to the resumption of inspections. Indeed, in November 2002, just when the inspections were about to resume this type of activity spiked. Here are three examples.  
At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components. At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly.  

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.  
Days after this activity, the vehicles and the equipment that I've just highlighted disappear and the site returns to patterns of normalcy. We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving, but the inspectors already knew about these sites, so Iraq knew that they would be coming.  

We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have? Remember the first intercept in which two Iraqis talked about the need to hide a modified vehicle from the inspectors. Where did Iraq take all of this equipment? Why wasn't it presented to the inspectors? Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspectors.  

This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441.  

Saddam Hussein and his regime are not just trying to conceal weapons, they're also trying to hide people. You know the basic facts. Iraq has not complied with its obligation to allow immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons as required by Resolution 1441.  
The regime only allows interviews with inspectors in the presence of an Iraqi official, a minder. The official Iraqi organization charged with facilitating inspections announced, announced publicly and announced ominously that, quote, "Nobody is ready to leave Iraq to be interviewed." Iraqi Vice President Ramadan accused the inspectors of conducting espionage, a veiled threat that anyone cooperating with U.N. inspectors was committing treason.  

Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq's list was out of date and contained only about 500 names, despite the fact that UNSCOM had earlier put together a list of about 3,500 names.  

Let me just tell you what a number of human sources have told us.  

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.  

For example, in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.  
In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who'd been sent home. A dozen experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses. It goes on and on and on.  

As the examples I have just presented show, the information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work.  

My colleagues, operative paragraph four of U.N. Resolution 1441, which we lingered over so long last fall, clearly states that false statements and omissions in the declaration and a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute - the facts speak for themselves - shall constitute a further material breach of its obligation.  

They failed that test. By this standard, the standard of this operative paragraph, I believe that Iraq is now in further material breach of its obligations. I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable.

Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.  

The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction. But how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: "Enough. Enough." The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.  

First, biological weapons. We have talked frequently here about biological weapons. By way of introduction and history, I think there are just three quick points I need to make.  

First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry - to pry - an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.  

Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount - this is just about the amount of a teaspoon - less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.  

Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.  

And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.

President Discusses Growing Danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Regime  

Radio Address by the President to the Nation Sept 14 2002 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020914.html

President's Radio Address  Feb 8 2003 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html

END OF MESSAGE

And Matt also has a Tony Blair problem, an Israeli, German and Egyptian Intel problem as well as a senate Intel problem full of Dems that haven't accused Bush of lying.

Matt has a lot of problems. Lol.

You are pointing to Bush being WRONG about WMD, not lying about it.

Misstatements of fact are not lies and not even close.

For example, if you place a file at work in your bosses office, but his boss comes in and removes it without your knowledge, and your boss asks you where the file is...would you be lying by stating it was in his office? Of course not. You didn't know it was removed. You just had the facts wrong, you didn't lie.

Like I said, Clinton appointed CIA chief said WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. As did Great Britain as well as several other countries previously mentioned.

The info you are talking about came from failed intelligence Matt, not lies. There isn't one Dem member of the Intel committe that has ever accused Bush of lying and neither did the CNN article you linked too but believe what you want.

Bush wanted a war, and he wanted it with Iraq, so he drummed up evidence for it's justification.

Very likely President Bush was misled by card sharks.  

 
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."  
     President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.  

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."  
     President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.  

 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."  
     Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.  

 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."  
     Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998  

 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."  
     Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.  

 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."  
     Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.  

 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."  
     Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.  

 "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."  
     Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.  

 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."  
     Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.  

 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."  
     Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.  

 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."  
     Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.  

 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."  
     Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.  

 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."  
     Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.  

 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
     Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.  

 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."  
     Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,  

 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."  
     Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.  

 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."  
     Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002  

 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...  
     Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.