0
105

[–] SandHog 0 points 105 points (+105|-0) ago 

This is how you fix Fake News.

0
29

[–] thisgoyfux 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

God damn Nick played his hand right. Just stood there, smiled, enjoyed the drums. Everything else just flew off from there once the media got hold of it. Now this kid stands to never need to work another minute to pay his keep.

0
24

[–] TerraKell 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

He earned his keep by keeping cool.

0
13

[–] HillBoulder 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

The world's first litigation billionaire coming right up.

0
4

[–] Calculations 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'd be beaming if that was my kid, his parent raised him right.

0
0

[–] RebeccaSugar ago 

Well, he's a Jew, why is this such a surprise? They hate work

0
25

[–] redditugee 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

Finally, some accountability!

5
4

[–] Tallest_Skil 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

Jewish. Censorship. Bypassed

What, type more jew numbers into a computer to pay someone off and then go back to saying exactly the same things every day?

NO, YOU FUCKING COWARDS AND SHILLS. YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING ARGUMENT, YOU GODDAMN PIECES OF SHIT.

0
2

[–] muffalettadiver 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I love you.

4
0

[–] SandHog 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Aw, did you have to delete and repost your comment because the first one got too many downvoats? Classic.

9
-6

0
75

[–] Zizara42 0 points 75 points (+75|-0) ago 

Here's hoping he bankrupts them like Hogan did Gawker.

0
9

[–] Joker68 [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

More power to him

0
8

[–] BentAxel 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

NBC is worth $30 Billion. Its a nice thought but if we are lucky it will get on person fired at the top.

0
9

[–] TestForScience 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Net worth and cash in hand are two very different things, my friend.

0
8

[–] gazillions 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There are so many potential lawsuits out there. And their version of accounting isn't to be trusted for one second.

0
5

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

the lawsuit win is worth 100x that. itll set a precedent and open ttb e flood gates to more

0
1

[–] Rizzo9000 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Nah, you set a blood-in-the-water precedent and NBC will start the domino effect thru all the CIA media

0
6

[–] Hitlers_Politoed 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

HH

0
3

[–] Deathperception 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Hope in one hand & shit in the other & tell me which one fills up faster.

0
0

[–] sane ago 

Can we keep eating from the shit hand to make more room?

0
34

[–] KingHiss 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago 

Hope he gets it, these fucking clowns dont care who they thrown under a bus as long as it serves their propaganda agenda.

0
24

[–] jozsefsz 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

He has similar suits for similar amounts against CNN and WaPo too. Pretty sure the young man won't have to work a day in his life. Good on him.

0
2

[–] sane 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Good on him.

FYI, that is a british, not USA English phrase. That distinction is important if you are trying to type USA English.

In American English it would be written:

"Good For Him" , not "good on him"

think of it as short for "He did good FOR himself"

Also USA coined it far before Britain, and far before Australia which coined theirs before britain.

PROOF:

“Good for you” predates it, for example, in Louisa May Alcott’s 1874 “Old-Fashioned Girl”: “Good for you, Polly!"
A famous American novel with standard phrasing.

The first citation in the OED is from an Australian 1914 novel called “Simple Simon”: “‘What ho!’ she exclaimed. ‘You’ve biffed him. Good on you, my lad!’”

TL/DR : You are probably not in USA. No American should write bastardized british speech. US English rules definition of international english , and in fact Japan rigorously calls USA English, simply "International Language".

Shorter summary : butt-hurt people don't like solid facts and decry provable grammar facts as "nazis", yet if voat had any liberal arts Ivy league graduates here, they would defend this comment of mine. Intelligent conversations get downvoated by uneducated masses here.

0
1

[–] jozsefsz 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I appreciate the comment, no offense taken, and I don't see any downvoting. This phrase is somewhat common in southern U.S. slang (I spent a few years in Louisiana where I likely picked up the phrase). Of course many there are distantly French. I'm not British however, this is just a phrase I picked up somewhere along the road. "Good for him" carries a sarcastic connotation these days, I prefer 'good on him' because it feels more genuine. Regardless of its origins. I've actually upvoted your comment, though I don't think it's legitimate to call folks 'uneducated masses' because your comment (while valid and educational) may not add much to the discussion at-hand.

1
23

[–] juniperspaceweed 1 point 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

Go get em goy

0
2

[–] 65Creedmoor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ma Goy!

0
22

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Keep it up buddy

0
14

[–] AlarmClockandRadio 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

"The Post filed last month a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the newspaper’s coverage of Nicholas was “not only accurate; it was ultimately favorable to him.”" What on God's Earth?

0
8

[–] jozsefsz 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Yeah, their defense is basically 'we just regurgitated what others were saying so it's not defamation.' I hope they're filing in sympathetic (non-Obama-appointee courts) jurisdictions and look to seat a jury. Otherwise this will be an expensive trip to the jews' playground without much result.

0
3

[–] big_fat_dangus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Sure sounds alot like the Nuremberg defense. I seem to remember that not holding up well.

0
8

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_REDDITS 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

What is a realistic outcome of this? I assume he's not going to actually get that much money. But can he get some money? and win on principal?

0
2

[–] zit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In most countries EXCEPT USA, libel and slander can sometimes win in court, or arbitration. in USA it is impossible for an adult public figure to ever win, but he was not a public figure and more importantly he was a "child". His lawsuit will be over "emotional trauma" and "ruined reputation" and "damaged lifetime earnings" and "limited university opportunities".

It will not be for libel/slander.

HE WILL WIN

His biggest wins will be news organizations (not SNL), that caused snowball effect and smeared first 24 hours. All the rest can fingerprint to prior days reports and feign "not responsible"

His lawyers will always get 30% plus trivial expense fees, he will get 70% of each settlement, and the lawyers will sadly settle for 2 million per big fish.

I wish he took it to court instead, even if it took 7 to 8 years per trial. The costs will mount, he will win lawyer fees, but the lawyers ALSO take 30% of those solace winnings making their total take the true fees plus 30% more of the remittence!

His lawyers will sadly only go after the big fish from the first day, not the 400 other news outlets.

I predict UPI/Reuters will be the next two. A total of 5. Maybe ABC.

Total take , pre lawyer, if he settles all of them 5 * 2 million (10 million dollars).

I am not incorrect.

0
0

[–] HankRHill ago 

it'll probably be settled and his lawyer will get most of the settlement

load more comments ▼ (29 remaining)