On Feb 13, 8:38*pm, jps wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:45:20 -0500, Harryk
wrote:



On 2/13/11 7:16 PM, BAR wrote:
In article4ZydnSScr7Eg7cXQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdn...@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/13/11 6:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In om,
says...

In ,
says...

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.

Looks like Krause wss right about you all along.
Wasn't sure until now.

I made no statement for or against anyone. I seek only fairness from all
and fairness for all.

Bull****, with a capital B.

Please provide the quote where I pushed Brietbart?s side or Sherrod?s
side.

I mad a statement about how too many witnesses can cause problems with
trying to keep a story straight.

The original unedited video is available, and the "slightly edited to
change the meaning" edited video of Breitbart is available. If a jury
sees the tapes, it will see what Ms. Sherrod said and what Breitbart, et
al, changed the tape to make it appear she was making a racist remark.

I would guess Breitbart will offer a settlement. I hope the woman
doesn't take it.

She refused to go back to her old job after Obama's folks screwed up
with their knee jerk reaction. *Seems she's a person of substance and
conviction.


.. Unlike you, Krause, or D'Plume, She very well may have some
scruples