|
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message
... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
"BAR" wrote Have you thought about what kind of environmental mess there will be when an LIon battery is compromised in an auto crash and what the cost to you will be to clean it up? OH, great! A $41k electric slug, and a $41k cleanup every time one gets run over by a normal car. That's planning at government's best. And liberals. And environmentalists. We all should ride bicycles, eat wheat germ, and live in caves. However, I will stay right where I am until my supply of mammal flesh runs out. They say that human flesh is an acquired taste, but not that bad. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Steve B" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote Have you thought about what kind of environmental mess there will be when an LIon battery is compromised in an auto crash and what the cost to you will be to clean it up? OH, great! A $41k electric slug, and a $41k cleanup every time one gets run over by a normal car. That's planning at government's best. And liberals. And environmentalists. We all should ride bicycles, eat wheat germ, and live in caves. However, I will stay right where I am until my supply of mammal flesh runs out. They say that human flesh is an acquired taste, but not that bad. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com So, now you're going to claim that the Obama admin is the entity that planned a GM car that was in the works for years? Talk about right-wing nut thinking... |
Would $10 million do it?
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. If this is true, why haven't you sued your mom? |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. You're Right. On the larger scheme of things, this seems to be one of the administration's lesser mistakes. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of bureaucratic incompetence. |
Would $10 million do it?
In article ,
says... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. If this is true, why haven't you sued your mom? Why should I let the lawyers get some of the money when all I have to do is a wait a few years and I will get all of the money. |
Would $10 million do it?
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 08:27:39 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. If this is true, why haven't you sued your mom? Why should I let the lawyers get some of the money when all I have to do is a wait a few years and I will get all of the money. Makes sense that your mom had only one child after seeing what she produced. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. You ARE a third grader. Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to go for you. MORON |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. You're Right. On the larger scheme of things, this seems to be one of the administration's lesser mistakes. I'd even agree with that. The admin has made many mistakes, but in comparison to the previous administration, they're doing brilliantly. Bush screwed over this country and Obama is trying to fix it. Mistakes happen, but Bush's "mistakes" were mostly deliberate. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants it. I bet this suit quietly goes away Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national attention. I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of bureaucratic incompetence. You're a small moron in a sea of right-wing nutcase morons. What's your point? |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants it. I bet this suit quietly goes away Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national attention. I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for the superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of his crew were held accountable for all their blunders. Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. You ARE a third grader. Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to go for you. MORON I'm trying to be nice to you. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of bureaucratic incompetence. You're a small moron in a sea of right-wing nutcase morons. What's your point? I'm surprised that such a straightforward comment went right over your head. Whoosh, if you will. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. You ARE a third grader. Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to go for you. MORON I'm trying to be nice to you. You're not trying to be a moron. You are a moron. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants it. I bet this suit quietly goes away Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national attention. I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for the superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of his crew were held accountable for all their blunders. Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so. Want to stop being a racist/liar? Didn't think so. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of bureaucratic incompetence. You're a small moron in a sea of right-wing nutcase morons. What's your point? I'm surprised that such a straightforward comment went right over your head. Whoosh, if you will. I'm not surprised you're a moron and neither is anyone else. Whoosh... |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will invariably end up being about the 1st amendment. I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than Flynt's case. I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person. He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. You ARE a third grader. Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to go for you. MORON I'm trying to be nice to you. You're not trying to be a moron. You are a moron. Really toots, you don't make any sense. Maybe you need therapy. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants it. I bet this suit quietly goes away Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national attention. I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for the superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of his crew were held accountable for all their blunders. Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so. Want to stop being a racist/liar? Didn't think so. You are such a juvenile. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote: I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers coming out of the woodwork. You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind. Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of bureaucratic incompetence. You're a small moron in a sea of right-wing nutcase morons. What's your point? I'm surprised that such a straightforward comment went right over your head. Whoosh, if you will. I'm not surprised you're a moron and neither is anyone else. Whoosh... Totally lame response. It's no wonder you couldn't make it as a lawyer. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under the rug. |
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/2/10 5:35 AM, Harry ?? wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under the rug. That's our flajim...always looking out for the best interests of President Obama. Right. Eat **** and die, dirtbag. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
In article ,
says... On 8/2/10 10:33 AM, wrote: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will invariably end up being about the 1st amendment. I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than Flynt's case. I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person. He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember what the offensive material was. Flynt did not go to court over the beaver pictures. It was a cartoon series he did that alleged that Jerry Falwell was a pedophile and had an incestuous relationship with his mother. After it was all over they actually became friends in a strange way. I believe it was a fake ad in Hustler magazine. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Falwell was a pedophile who had an incestuous relationship with his mother. Flynt is an honest sleaze; Falwell was a hypocritical one. Hey, spoofer, my little buddy Don just stated that if you say things like that YOU are the one with those thoughts. So, that being said, how was your "incestuous relationship" with your mother? |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ??" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. Exactly. Scary huh? Exactly. You're a moron. You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader. You ARE a third grader. Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to go for you. MORON I'm trying to be nice to you. You're not trying to be a moron. You are a moron. Really toots, you don't make any sense. Maybe you need therapy. Really moron, you are one. Maybe you need a brain transplant. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ??" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:fhe956pm6s118n8ieamm2oh3e88l402h0s@4ax. com... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be co-defendants in this slander suit? Hardly. They didn't start the situation. If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat as Vilsack and Obama. Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for over reacting before they had the facts. It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger things they have done were. No. He had an agenda. It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise. So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants it. I bet this suit quietly goes away Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national attention. I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for the superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of his crew were held accountable for all their blunders. Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so. Want to stop being a racist/liar? Didn't think so. You are such a juvenile. Poor baby. Don't like me? Fine with me! Don't read my posts. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will invariably end up being about the 1st amendment. I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than Flynt's case. I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person. He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember what the offensive material was. Flynt did not go to court over the beaver pictures. It was a cartoon series he did that alleged that Jerry Falwell was a pedophile and had an incestuous relationship with his mother. After it was all over they actually became friends in a strange way. Falwell was a public figure. It was a spoof not a lie. There's a big difference. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ??" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job). That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple days and now she is totally vindicated. She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring the "she's a racist" bell. She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner. Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this. That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know. More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS. It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under the rug. Wow.. you're really working overtime to spoof Harry. You must be infatuated with him. Harry... keep your back to the wall! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com