|
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 : ... : : 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. : : Are you trying to tell ME what to do? |
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 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! : : Ahh. You know my brother's passion for butts, I see. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. We will see. I have $10 that says this quietly goes away, particularly if Sherrod is serious about a career and not just perpetuating her 15 minutes a littler longer. I'm sorry, but that's a really lame response. Sherrod is a serious person and she was defamed by an opportunist. She's not interested, as far as I can tell, in being famous. She was quite content to do her job without all the crap this guy heaped on her. Being a victim makes you look weak and DC likes power, particularly in women. She would be better off egging his house than suing him. ;-) Whatever. |
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/2/10 1:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"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! It must be better to be a "spoofed me" than it is to be whoever he is. |
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 : ... : : "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. : : : But you're an expert moron/racist! : : What's with the racist ****? I think Buckwheat is a charismatic dude. I just don't think he has the qualifications to be president. He'd be a terrific used car salesman though. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/2/10 5:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:25:42 -0400, Harry wrote: On 8/2/10 4:20 PM, wrote: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:47:52 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:08:43 -0700, wrote: 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. We will see. I have $10 that says this quietly goes away, particularly if Sherrod is serious about a career and not just perpetuating her 15 minutes a littler longer. I'm sorry, but that's a really lame response. Sherrod is a serious person and she was defamed by an opportunist. She's not interested, as far as I can tell, in being famous. She was quite content to do her job without all the crap this guy heaped on her. It may be crap but I doubt she can win. They were her words. The real defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted the excerpts of the tape on his blog. 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. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:47:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. We will see. I have $10 that says this quietly goes away, particularly if Sherrod is serious about a career and not just perpetuating her 15 minutes a littler longer. I'm sorry, but that's a really lame response. Sherrod is a serious person and she was defamed by an opportunist. She's not interested, as far as I can tell, in being famous. She was quite content to do her job without all the crap this guy heaped on her. It may be crap but I doubt she can win. They were her words. The real Actually, technically they were her words taken out of context with the intent to defame. At least that's what the suit would say. 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. He can say he posted what he got "from a source" and his "opinion" was that she was a racist. You can't be prosecuted for having an opinion. In fact that is basically what happened all the way to the White House. We don't know who actually excerpted that part out of the tape. For example, if a McD's customer posts in her blog that the manager of the chain is a pedophile, and that manager is not, in fact, a pedophile, the person writing that could be successfully sued for defamation. On the other hand, if the person claimed that in her opinion the manager looks like a pedophile then it's doubtful that the suit would be successful. See the difference? If the person says "The manager (by name) is a pedophile," then it's a statement of fact not an opinion. In Breitbart's case, he said, in essence, see the NAACP is a racist organization because they listen to racists like Shannon. That's actionable. If he had said, here are some excerpts from a video, and it seems to me this person sounds like a racist, then it's a free speech issue. It's an opinion. I also will still say TV networks will line up with the defense. If editing tapes to make people look bad was a crime, 60 Minutes would be in court every week. That is the best case scenario, that this is a 1st amendment case. Nope. 60 minutes presents facts. They check them pretty carefully, otherwise they WOULD be in court. (They are anyway.) Of course the defense attorney can also continue the slime job and ask her "We know you used to be a racist, you admit that. When did you stop being a racist"? Then he produces 3 or 4 rednecks from the Georgia Farm Bureau that remember her saying racially insensitive things in a Mark Furman moment. I don't think you want to use Furman as an example. His statements were not taken out of context. You know lawyers will do what it takes to win. Why would anyone want to open up that can of worms. My bet still stands. $10 says this just goes away. That's an easy bet, since there could be a dozen reasons why it might go away. If you want to be honest about it, you should bet that it'll be dismissed as a 1st amend. issue. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry " wrote in message m... On 8/2/10 4:20 PM, wrote: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:47:52 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:08:43 -0700, wrote: 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. We will see. I have $10 that says this quietly goes away, particularly if Sherrod is serious about a career and not just perpetuating her 15 minutes a littler longer. I'm sorry, but that's a really lame response. Sherrod is a serious person and she was defamed by an opportunist. She's not interested, as far as I can tell, in being famous. She was quite content to do her job without all the crap this guy heaped on her. It may be crap but I doubt she can win. They were her words. The real defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted the excerpts of the tape on his blog. You really are working extra hard trying to rationalize and excuse the behavior of Breitbart. Sure sounds like it, but I'm willing to give him some more opportunities to get past that impression. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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? |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
"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. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
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? |
Would $10 million do it?
"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. 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. You and those like you seem to think that because a few people are prejudice that means it's an entire organization. Liberals are racist; the NAACP is. Republicans are racist. Why don't you tell us about the New Black Panthers again. Like I said, you're a moron. |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... : : "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. : : 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. You and those like you seem to think that because a few people : are prejudice that means it's an entire organization. Liberals are racist; : the NAACP is. Republicans are racist. Why don't you tell us about the New : Black Panthers again. : : Like I said, you're a moron. : : |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:06:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. There is far more to lose than there is to win. Breitbart will have good lawyers too. Again, I disagree. Racism and libel are a bad mix and need to be confronted. It's a slippery slope. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:34:28 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 8/2/10 5:51 PM, wrote: 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. Yeah, why would a trial about the racism of the right wing help obama...oh, wait... Lawyers are involved, it won't stop there. Breitbart's lawyer will wrap him in the 1st amendment and question her reformation. After all, she is on tape saying she was once a racist. All it would take would be a couple of disgruntled employees who said she never really changed (true or not) and she will be set back to July 19. I think she should quit being a hero and take one of the good jobs she has been offered. Her vindication would be if she actually brought us together more closely, not by engaging in a law suit that divides us. You can blame lawyers all you want but at the end of the day, we need to be responsible for what we say and do. He needs to be held accountable. I think you don't have much to say to her. Your father wasn't lynched. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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 |
Would $10 million do it?
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." |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
"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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. :) |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry wrote: 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. 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. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. -- Republicans: they have absolutely no hearts and absolutely no brains, which is a quirky miracle of the universe, since they still manage to remain a life form. |
Would $10 million do it?
In article 9f86a3a2-2d8a-42f8-9b01-
, says... On Aug 3, 7:42*am, Harry ? wrote: 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. 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. 3, 4, and 5... He made it up... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Would $10 million do it?
On Aug 3, 9:57Â*am, Harry  wrote:
On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry Â*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. Â*You demonstrate that here on a daily basis. Â*A white person holding a sign that says "We want our country back!" is not racist. Â*A sign with Obama made to look like the Joker is not racist. Â*No matter how your little mind perceives it. 2. You lie. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. "Translations", no doubt, given by lying liberals such as yourself. |
Would $10 million do it?
On Aug 3, 10:00*am, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 9f86a3a2-2d8a-42f8-9b01- , says... On Aug 3, 7:42*am, Harry ? wrote: 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. 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. 3, 4, and 5... He made it up... He believes everything he hears on left-wing hate media. |
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/3/10 10:56 AM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 3, 9:57 am, Harry wrote: On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry wrote: 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. 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. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. "Translations", no doubt, given by lying liberals such as yourself. Actually, no...but how many teaparty pigs have the cojones to come out and say what they really think about a black president? After all, not many are from the banjo-playing albino refrigerator on the porch region of your state. -- Republicans: they have absolutely no hearts and absolutely no brains, which is a quirky miracle of the universe, since they still manage to remain a life form. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
On Aug 3, 11:09*am, Harry? wrote:
In article , says... On 8/3/10 10:56 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 9:57 am, Harry *wrote: On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry * *wrote: 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. 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. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. "Translations", no doubt, given by lying liberals such as yourself. Actually, no...but how many teaparty pigs have the cojones to come out and say what they really think about a black president? After all, not many are from the banjo-playing albino refrigerator on the porch region of your state. Spoofer alert! I'm certainly not bigoted like that. He's a bigot, racist and liar. And lives in the backwater state of MD, which hosts the KKK HQ, and the US's most polluted waters. He must be proud. |
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/3/10 10:56 AM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 3, 9:57 am, Harry wrote: On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry wrote: 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. 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. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. "Translations", no doubt, given by lying liberals such as yourself. The percentage of blacks at tea party rallies is smaller than the percentage of blacks at the GOP's every four years political conventions, and that percentage is so small as to be non-existent. The Republican Party is racist, and so is its base, which forms the bulk of the tea party. |
Would $10 million do it?
On 8/3/10 11:13 AM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 3, 11:09 am, wrote: In , says... On 8/3/10 10:56 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 9:57 am, Harry wrote: On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, Jack wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Harry wrote: 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. 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. Well, jackoff, you are wrong, as usual, in the first part of your response, and as to the second part, there have been several "translations" given for "We want our country back," and at least one of them is that the signholder wants a white man in the presidency. Code language, as it were. "Translations", no doubt, given by lying liberals such as yourself. Actually, no...but how many teaparty pigs have the cojones to come out and say what they really think about a black president? After all, not many are from the banjo-playing albino refrigerator on the porch region of your state. Spoofer alert! I'm certainly not bigoted like that. He's a bigot, racist and liar. And lives in the backwater state of MD, which hosts the KKK HQ, and the US's most polluted waters. He must be proud. ....poor little jackoff. Well, at least your mama didn't name you..sue. Interesting that you and tosk call me a bigot and a racist. Is that because I don't believe in your vision of perpetual white supremacy? -- Republicans: they have absolutely no hearts and absolutely no brains, which is a quirky miracle of the universe, since they still manage to remain a life form. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com