Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun...

Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support

There are 1996 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Sep 10, 2013, titled Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

Colorado voters ousted two state lawmakers Tuesday in first-ever recall elections that came in reaction to the Democrats' support for tougher gun laws in the aftermath of last year's mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1167 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>"Slander and libel are both types of defamation, which refers to statements that damage another person's reputation. While there are similarities, each focuses on different types of defamation strategy. The primary difference between slander and libel is that libel is the written or otherwise printed public defamation of a person or entity, while slander is the spoken defamation of a person or entity. Slander can also include bodily gestures while libel can include published photographs."
GayDavy: Is Alexander Hamilton still dead?
Selective reading again, eh lying troll?

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"

10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE PUBLISHED<<<< <<<<<<, that is, communicated to a third person; and >>>>>IF<< <<< verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired.

And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech. While PRINT media CANNOT be.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1168 Nov 9, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective reading again, eh lying troll?
">>>>>usua lly<<<<< an oral (spoken) representation"
10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, >>>>>>> >>>BE
1856.

English law.

Here you go, America:

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1169 Nov 9, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking >>>>>or writing words<<<<< which affect his life
His life, by the way.

Is Alexander Hamilton still dead?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1170 Nov 9, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
And the internet is NOT "fixed media". It can be altered at will, just as speech.
No, and no.

You cannot change what you posted here- as much as you try.

And speech cannot be fixed, unless you have a time machine and can change what you said by altering the time continuum.

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

++

happy to see you pull up that state law where you can prove slander, dear.

Putting aside I already proved it is not slander.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1171 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
Is this like the same spam you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads and then you copy some more over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and you copy over and over and over every day across many threads and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads then you copy over and over and over every day some more across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you change your alias?
Poor pervert is upset

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1172 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>1856.

English law.

Here you go, America:

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.
What does that have to do with your gay sex fantasies that you post over and over again???

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1173 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>His life, by the way.

Is Alexander Hamilton still dead?
How about ashtray?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1174 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>No, and no.

You cannot change what you posted here- as much as you try.

And speech cannot be fixed, unless you have a time machine and can change what you said by altering the time continuum.

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

++

happy to see you pull up that state law where you can prove slander, dear.

Putting aside I already proved it is not slander.
You are the one that forgets what you post

Tell us again how Zim is guilty and going to jail for shooting the black animal ashtray......,

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1176 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, and no.
You cannot change what you posted here- as much as you try.
And speech cannot be fixed, unless you have a time machine and can change what you said by altering the time continuum.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.
++
happy to see you pull up that state law where you can prove slander, dear.
Putting aside I already proved it is not slander.
You have proven NOTHING, troll. Other than the FACT that you are unable to comprehend REALITY. And THAT is a FACT that you have proven most conclusively.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1177 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
You have proven NOTHING, troll. Other than the FACT
Sweetums: it's not up for me to prove YOUR assertions!

HAHAHAHAAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1178 Nov 10, 2013
[QUOTE who="2ndAmRight" Other than the FACT that you are unable to comprehend REALITY.[/QUOTE]

PS: Troll- I have given you a half dozen DIFFERENT links that insist that if you want to accuse someone of slander, it is UP TO YOU to prove it.

It's isn't just my learned opinion.

Putting aside SLANDER is for spoken word and the DOZEN times I've had to point out to you that your gay hero has been dead for two hundred years, give or take.

PS: And it isn't slander if it's true.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1179 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetums: it's not up for me to prove YOUR assertions!
HAHAHAHAAHAH!
Can't help that you can't read troll.

Do you really think that you are fooling anyone with your meaningless chatter?

EVERYONE on ALL of these threads has seen your utter defeat. And NO amount of spew from you is going to alter that FACT one iota.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1180 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help that you can't read troll.
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-c her.

Wipe your chin, Davy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1181 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
EVERYONE on ALL of these threads has seen your utter defeat.
Polling your aliases... doesn't count, Davy.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1182 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-c her.
Wipe your chin, Davy.
LIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR >AND< WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-c her, troll.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1184 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
LIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR >AND< WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-c her, troll.
Is Alexander alive or dead, Davy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1185 Nov 10, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
2ndAmNotRight has 947 posts since joining in October. I suppose people got weary of his other aliases.
Topix gets annoyed with him posting the same thing in a dozen threads.

But we are conducting a poll... to help him out...

Is Alexander Hamilton
A) Alive?
B) Dead?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1186 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Alexander alive or dead, Davy?
Your fallacious attempts at deflection aren't working, troll. Nor will they ever work. It's a matter of public record. And nothing will change that fact. You're caught in yet another of your repeated lies. All you are doing now, is looking even more foolish than previously. As well as tragically pathetic. Poor sad little troll...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1188 Nov 10, 2013
That Alexander Hamilton is indeed dead? If he is dead... you have a problem proving slander. Putting aside I already proved you wrong already. I will give you three hours to expand on your theory on how one can slander someone who has been dead for two hundred years.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#1189 Nov 11, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually YOU are the most pathetic poster on Topix. 848 posts since joining on October 13. I guess you can't get anyone to listen to you at home ArmedVetTardTurd. So much you want to say and yet you say so little.
PITIFUL!
One last time......2ndAmRight and I are NOT he same person.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 41 min spud 1,472
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 48 min spud 975
News Letter: Second Amendment should be abolished 9 hr Prep-for-Dep 6
News AG Healey's assault weapons order is an overdue... 21 hr Get Out 3
News Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment (Dec '14) Jul 16 Prep-for-Dep 60
News Q&A: What are the firearms rules for the GOP co... Jul 13 Banned 2016 1
News What Paul Ryan wants in Donald Trumpa s vice-pr... Jul 13 spud 3
More from around the web