wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:03:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted
the excerpts of the tape on his blog. The first thing they have to
prove is that he saw the whole tape. I have not heard that he was the
one who selected the excerpts, only that he posted them.

Nope. Don't have to prove he saw the whole tape. They have to prove he
willfully misrepresented her words.

If that is the test, Vilsack belongs in the dock too.

?? Vilsack didn't publish the lie.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:55:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:03:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted
the excerpts of the tape on his blog. The first thing they have to
prove is that he saw the whole tape. I have not heard that he was the
one who selected the excerpts, only that he posted them.

Nope. Don't have to prove he saw the whole tape. They have to prove he
willfully misrepresented her words.

If that is the test, Vilsack belongs in the dock too.

?? Vilsack didn't publish the lie.

What lie? It sounds more like an opinion by a prejudiced person.
This was simply an edited tape. There WERE her words. She admits she
used to be a racist and then says she is reformed.

Come on. Breitbart knew it was misleading, but he promoted it as the truth.

The first thing someone would have to prove is that Breitbart actually
saw the unedited tape and knew that she says she was reformed. Then
you have to prove he believed it. He can always say, in his opinion,
the reformation was a lie.

In your opinion. Fortunately, you're not an attorney!

Then you would have to prove he did not have the right to publish his
OPINION about it.

In your opinion.

It was very easy for liberal democrats to jump to the wrong
conclusion. It would even be easier to think a right winger could have
tunnel vision when they viewed the tape, even if they saw it all.

So, instead of Breitbart being the instigator, it's somehow morphed into the
entire fault of those who over-reacted?

Nice try, but that doesn't cut it. I suspect Breitbart is going to settle as
fast as possible or try to. She didn't impress me as someone who's afraid of
a fight.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:16:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:55:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:03:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted
the excerpts of the tape on his blog. The first thing they have to
prove is that he saw the whole tape. I have not heard that he was the
one who selected the excerpts, only that he posted them.

Nope. Don't have to prove he saw the whole tape. They have to prove he
willfully misrepresented her words.

If that is the test, Vilsack belongs in the dock too.

?? Vilsack didn't publish the lie.

What lie? It sounds more like an opinion by a prejudiced person.
This was simply an edited tape. There WERE her words. She admits she
used to be a racist and then says she is reformed.

Come on. Breitbart knew it was misleading, but he promoted it as the truth.

The first thing someone would have to prove is that Breitbart actually
saw the unedited tape and knew that she says she was reformed. Then
you have to prove he believed it. He can always say, in his opinion,
the reformation was a lie.

In your opinion. Fortunately, you're not an attorney!

Then you would have to prove he did not have the right to publish his
OPINION about it.

In your opinion.

It was very easy for liberal democrats to jump to the wrong
conclusion. It would even be easier to think a right winger could have
tunnel vision when they viewed the tape, even if they saw it all.

So, instead of Breitbart being the instigator, it's somehow morphed into the
entire fault of those who over-reacted?

Nice try, but that doesn't cut it. I suspect Breitbart is going to settle as
fast as possible or try to. She didn't impress me as someone who's afraid of
a fight.

She can help balance the injustice Breitbart sold to congress
regarding Acorn. He was behind the fake pimp outfit and that whole
edited tape fiasco so there's plenty of evidence that this is his
stock in trade.

He was also behind trying to set up covert wire taps or Mary
Landrieu's offices.

Scum.

On Aug 2, 9:58*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

....

On Aug 2, 6:06 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:33:32 -0400, Harry ?

wrote:

You really are working extra hard trying to rationalize and
excuse
the
behavior of Breitbart.

I am just addressing the reality
It is fun to think he will get his comeuppance but it is not
likely.

We won't know anything until/unless a suit is filed.

I just think it will be better for all concerned if this just goes
away. I am sure Obama would not want this to be dominating the news
cycle during the elections.
We certainly have far more important issues.

I totally disagree. I think it should go forward and be addressed.
This
bs
about racism supposedly perpetrated by the NAACP and other minority
organizations needs to see the light of day disinfectant.

It already has. *Didn't you hear the audience cheering?

You're a right-wingnut moron.

Weak, childish taunts are all you have?

What about the fact that the NAACP members were cheering her
description of how she was a racist? *Are you really so blind as to
think that rasism doesn't exist in the NAACP?

You're the child. Why don't you listen to some more Rush/Palin/Breitbart.
I'm sure you would be better informed than the rest of us.

There you go again.


Obviously there's racism in most organizations. There are always going to be
people who can't put aside the fact that people look differently or act
differently.

And now you may be coming around...
There *are* racist people around us. They are in the Tea Party, the
Democratic Party, and in the NAACP.

You and those like you seem to think that because a few people
are prejudice that means it's an entire organization.

Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org. You've reasoned it out for
yourself. Now talk to the others that think like you and explain it
to them.

cya

On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:


Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs,
tee-shirts, and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist artwork
and phrases on them. Tea party types remind me of a time in U.S. history
when we were plagued by the "know nothings."

In article ,
says...

On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:


Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs,
tee-shirts, and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist artwork
and phrases on them. Tea party types remind me of a time in U.S. history
when we were plagued by the "know nothings."

Let me guess, spoofer. You didn't have your cell phone with you so you
couldn't take pictures, right?

On 8/3/10 8:03 AM, Harry? wrote:
In articleJumdnSVoya8JncXRnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:


Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs,
tee-shirts, and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist artwork
and phrases on them. Tea party types remind me of a time in U.S. history
when we were plagued by the "know nothings."

Let me guess, spoofer. You didn't have your cell phone with you so you
couldn't take pictures, right?


Frankly, I was holding my breath and walking fast in order to avoid
inhaling the tea party stench.

"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:


Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs, tee-shirts,
and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist artwork and phrases on
them. Tea party types remind me of a time in U.S. history when we were
plagued by the "know nothings."


Many on the left (including some here) conclude that if one does not fully
endorse Obama and his agenda, one is a racist. Simple as that.

On 8/3/10 8:19 AM, Charles C. wrote:


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:


Bingo! The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs,
tee-shirts, and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist
artwork and phrases on them. Tea party types remind me of a time in
U.S. history when we were plagued by the "know nothings."


Many on the left (including some here) conclude that if one does not
fully endorse Obama and his agenda, one is a racist. Simple as that.





Really? I've seen no examples of that. We do have a handful of
right-wing racists here, though.

I don't "fully endorse" Obama's "agenda." In the area of foreign policy,
for example, I think the "build-up" in Afghanistan was and is a dreadful
mistake.

I don't believe the "health care reform" that was passed and signed goes
nearly far enough.

I was hoping for a much-farther-to-the-left Obama, but what I got was a
middle-of-the-road Obama.

But I support him, nonetheless. And I'm trying to figure out how to
match up one of my grandsons with one of Obama's kids, when all of them
are old enough. :)

On Aug 3, 7:42Â*am, Harry  wrote:
On 8/3/10 7:31 AM, Jack wrote:



Bingo! Â*The Tea Party is not a racist org.

How many large tea party rallies have you attended, Jackoff?
I've walked by two of them in DC and noticed plenty of signs,
tee-shirts, and what-not of the attendees with blatantly racist artwork
and phrases on them.

Two big problems with the paragraph above:

1. You are one of those that beleives that anything that deviates from
your beliefs is somehow wrong. You demonstrate that here on a daily
basis. A white person holding a sign that says "We want our country
back!" is not racist. A sign with Obama made to look like the Joker
is not racist. No matter how your little mind perceives it.

2. You lie.